House rule on consumables and an easier fix.

[james maissen]

As Josh has asked that this discussion not take place on the FAQ thread, I figured I would start it up on it's own thread.

If reading this thread offends you in some way, please feel free not to read it or spam comments on it that will only prolong this thread and place it more often on the front of the lists enraging you even further.

That disclaimer over..

Josh stated that this rule and associated house rule makes things simpler.

I disagree and don't see how this is the case.

Core rules:
Your formula for scrolls is 25gp*spell level*caster level + material cost.

Some spells appear on multiple spell lists, and this was evidently too confusing a concept for some. These same people evidently objected that others, more knowledgeable, had purchased items for less gp than they did.

They were able to do this because they understood how scrolls worked and looked at other spell lists. They didn't need to do so, and could have paid a (higher) price by simply looking at their own spell list.

The poster child for this was the spell 'lesser restoration' which is a 2nd level cleric spell and a 1st level paladin spell. Thus a divine scroll of it at minimum caster levels is either 150gp for a 3rd CL scroll scribed by a cleric, or 25gp for a 1st CL scroll scribed by a paladin.

Somehow this single spell really annoys people. If that is truly the case, then the easiest and least impacting house rule would be to make the spell a 2nd level paladin spell rather than a 1st level one. In the end it would cause less confusion and affect less people.

Some people have defended this removal by saying that paladins don't scribe scrolls. Yet there are readily available scrolls of paladin only spells available and they are not clamoring for their removal. Perhaps now they will simply out of their insane dislike for a 1st level lesser restoration spell. I don't know it seems irrational, but c'est la vie. Again I say address this at the root.. alter the spell in question.

The problem with Josh's initial ban is that casters other than Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards suddenly had large amounts of their spell list that they couldn't purchase legal scrolls. This was really unfair to those characters (even the paladin ones who's brothers were scribing those dreaded lesser restoration scrolls).

For example a good number of Bard spells are not on the wizard/sorcerer list but rather only appear on the cleric (or druid) list(s). As scrolls are either arcane or divine depending upon who scribed them, the initial ruling made it so that a bard could not purchase an arcane scroll of cure light wounds, arcane scroll of silence, arcane scroll of freedom of movement, arcane scroll of speak with animals, and many others.

So Josh made a house rule that they could purchase scrolls of them at the prices of their divine counterparts that appeared on the cleric or druid lists.

This plays merry hell with the prices on them, however:
The arcane scroll of cure light wounds is unchanged at 25gp.
The arcane scroll of silence goes from 200gp min to 150gp and is allowed to exist at 3rd CL rather than a 4th CL min.
The arcane scroll of freedom of movement goes from 1000gp to 700gp and is allowed to exist at 7th CL rather than a 10th CL min.
The arcane scroll of speak with animals goes from 525gp to 25gp and is allowed to exist at 1st CL rather than 7th CL min.

Now the knowledgeable PC will be able to purchase in a good number of cases cheaper scrolls than core, and read them without check at earlier levels than they otherwise would be allowed.

Those not in the know of course can only complain. Perhaps this will generate another house rule, and so on.

Meanwhile other prices have increased, and worse the minimum CL on them has increased. The later is a serious problem in that a reader for a scroll needs to have his/her caster level at least as high as the caster level of the scroll to read it without a check.

The irredeemably evil lesser restoration spell that those foul paladins could provide increases from 25gp at 1st CL to 150gp at 3rd CL. Likewise rangers, bards, summoners, etc have spells that are higher caster level on scrolls than the minimum CL for their class.

What does this mean?

It means that if a poor 1st level bard wishes to say buy a scroll of hideous laughter he needs to spend 150gp rather than 25gp. Worse yet is that when he goes to read the scroll he needs to know that he has to make a caster level check to do so. Doesn't matter if it's a spell known to him or not. A 4th level ranger with resist energy memorized can't always read a minimum CL divine scroll of it on another.

All in all, I'm not seeing how ANY of this is EASIER. Rather it makes it more complicated and what does it SOLVE?

It stops 25gp scrolls of lesser restoration, 50gp potions of lesser restoration and 750gp wands of lesser restoration.

Changing lesser restoration to a 2nd level paladin spell would fix this and more.

Currently a 4th level paladin could memorize that hideous lesser restoration spell, cast it and then using only a 1st level pearl of power (say provided by the party cleric) recall the spell to cast it again.

Now a cleric would need to use a 2nd level pearl that costs 4000gp to do this! Thus that same investment by the cleric on 1st level pearls would have that paladin casting it a total of 5 times rather than only twice!

If the others are a problem, why isn't this?

If making all of these complicated house rules to achieve this is worth impacting all of the non-primarily listed spell casters (bards, summoners, inquisitors, witches, etc), why not just address the actual thing that is wanted to be 'fixed' and that's lesser restoration.

Either way PFS is making a house rule and diverting from the core, but this way the impact is far less while achieving even more along the lines that it seems was intended for it.

I'm not a fan of house rules in organized play. I think that they should be minimized, and wherever possible avoided altogether. Living Greyhawk fell into the trap of making these rules time after time, and it got to the point that there were many rules for which a good majority of the long time players were unaware. It made entrance into it in the later years a very daunting affair, and for no good reason. The campaign guide at one point neared 100pages like some avalanche that started as a small pebble. If I recall right one volunteer spent a great deal of time cutting it down at one point into a readable document, much like Hercules clearing the stables.

It never needed to get to that point, and as PFS goes through version after version of its rules document if it's not careful the same will happen to it. And it will discourage new players like the myriad of accounting rules that LG accumulated did as well.

I want us to learn from past organized play campaigns' mistakes.

-James

[hogarth]

james maissen wrote:

The poster child for this was the spell 'lesser restoration' which is a 2nd level cleric spell and a 1st level paladin spell. Thus a divine scroll of it at minimum caster levels is either 150gp for a 3rd CL scroll scribed by a cleric, or 25gp for a 1st CL scroll scribed by a paladin.

Somehow this single spell really annoys people. If that is truly the case, then the easiest and least impacting house rule would be to make the spell a 2nd level paladin spell rather than a 1st level one. In the end it would cause less confusion and affect less people.

The other one I've seen people be iffy on is the spell "resist energy" from the 1st level ranger list. I've also seen a 1st level ranger "delay poison" potion used as a precautionary measure, but that's not nearly as popular as the other two.

To be honest, I don't see what the kerfuffle is about. It's really just a handful of spells that are available in a lower-than-standard-level version, and an even smaller handful of those are actually useful in potion/scroll form. The PFS house rule just makes things more confusing, IMO.

[Herald]

I too don't understand what the big deal is. No one has ever complained in any of the games I run. I and I have a grand total of about 10 semi regular players.

How hard is it to read a chart and see what the GP cost is. It's certainly easier that rembering the formula you stated.

[hogarth]

Herald wrote:

I too don't understand what the big deal is. No one has ever complained in any of the games I run. I and I have a grand total of about 10 semi regular players.

How hard is it to read a chart and see what the GP cost is. It's certainly easier that rembering the formula you stated.

Why does Paizo need two different charts in the first place (one that clearly explains that an arcane scroll of Silence costs 200 gp, and one that says it costs 150 gp -- I think)?

[james maissen]

hogarth wrote:

Why does Paizo need two different charts in the first place (one that clearly explains that an arcane scroll of Silence costs 200 gp, and one that says it costs 150 gp -- I think)?

Honestly it doesn't need any such charts, but rather just the simple formula of 25gp*Spell Level*Caster Level + material cost.

Herald wrote:

How hard is it to read a chart and see what the GP cost is. It's certainly easier that rembering the formula you stated.

Alright you buy a 200gp arcane scroll of silence. What's the Caster level? This matters for duration, SR, range, as well as who can read the scroll without chance of failure. If a 3rd level Bard tries to read it does he/she have to roll to successfully do so?

Now I think that having a list for 'uncommon' spells/spell levels would be a useful player resource for someone to make to help themselves and others (less useful than say augment summon modified monster summon stat blocks) and would not be hard to do.

Something along the lines of
(Arcane/Divine)Spell Name/Spell Level/Minimum Caster Level
would suffice. Perhaps broken between those that are merely cheaper and those that are not normally of that type of magic (i.e. Arcane/Divine)

So you'd have things like:
(Arcane)Silence/2nd/CL4
(Arcane)Cure Light Wounds/1st/CL1
(Divine)Lesser Restoration/1st/CL1
(Divine)Charm Monster/5th/CL9

And the like to help you out in finding the cheapest thing out there. You may wish to talk about casting stat(s) as well should you want to make that list for using UMD.

But in the end it would be a little player resource that players would maintain rather easily. Those inclined could reference it or figure it out themselves.

If done online it could easily include prices for scrolls/potions/wands where appropriate at those minimum caster levels. Thus it would have the best of both worlds.

-James

[Herald]

The chart is eaiser to use.

Formulas aren't, they are always a source of confusion in games. I can be in a middle of a convention and ask someone to tel me what the DC is of the spell they are casting and I'll get a blank look as they try and remember 10 + Spell Level + attribute bonus. I can't tell you how many times players that have been in the game for 5 or more years and they will give me an answer of 10 + Caster level + something,...something....

And as far as variables, the scroll should be the minimums. If a bard is trying to by a bard scroll, then it is a scroll for a bard and it's at basic mimimum for the scroll to be created.

Simple.

Unless indicated as a special item that can be purchaced on a chronicle sheet, all scrolls are considered to be basic versions.

Anything else would be considered a custom item and that's not allowed in PFS rules. (afaik)

[LazarX]

This looks more like a solution looking for a problem. Several years of gaming 3.0, 3.5, several network campaigns from Living City, to LSJ and it's never come up to a significant degree.

General assumption that's always been made, is that NPC Paladins and Rangers don't take Scribe Scroll as they're not trying to be either cloistered clerics or druids. There generally is even less need for Ranger scrolls as Rangers cast what very few spells they need and do without. Spellcasting is not a big priority for Paladins and Rangers and NPCs of these classes are not going to spend thier feats on scribing them.

Just assume that cleric, wizard, and druid scrolls are what's available and use the simple formula. If you want to use a scroll as an arcanist you purchase an arcane scroll, likewise for divine.

I don't think you can avoid the house rules quagmire that Living Greyhawk (and to a lesser extent Living Arcanis) fell into. The main problem was that the Living Greyhawk players having had Living City and other experience under thier belts came in with expert knowledge of ways to "game" the system. There is simply no way you could change 3.x enough in the making of Pathfinder to close out the Cheese Lawyer effect.

The other major difference in Network Play is that your Judges don't have the ring of absolute authority that Home Play GM's. The Cheese Lawyers will hem, haw, and harangue as far as they feel like dragging something out, and the only fallback will be the body of House Rules that are a necessity of organized play.

[MisterSlanky]

For Josh's sake (in case he actually reads this thread), I'll throw my hat in the ring for "this isn't nearly as complex as James' seems to think it is, so leave the ruling as-is".

Now that my vote is cast that's the last I'll speak of the matter, since I'm already outright tired of this conversation, and it's nice to see it in a thread that can just quietly die.

[teribithia9]

MisterSlanky wrote:

For Josh's sake (in case he actually reads this thread), I'll throw my hat in the ring for "this isn't nearly as complex as James' seems to think it is, so leave the ruling as-is".

Now that my vote is cast that's the last I'll speak of the matter, since I'm already outright tired of this conversation, and it's nice to see it in a thread that can just quietly die.

+1

[hogarth]

MisterSlanky wrote:

For Josh's sake (in case he actually reads this thread), I'll throw my hat in the ring for "this isn't nearly as complex as James' seems to think it is, so leave the ruling as-is".

I don't think the point is that the PFS rule is particularly complex (although I'd argue that it's a bit confusing that a scroll of a 3rd level bard spell could cost 525 gp [Glibness] or 700 gp [Confusion] or 375 gp [Dispel Magic] or 25 gp [Speak with Animals]).

The point is that adding new house rules to what's in the Core rulebook is something that should be reserved for extreme cases, not just for general tinkering. Otherwise your list of house rules will just balloon without really improving the game.

In particular, there's nothing specific to Pathfinder Society play that makes a 50 gp potion of Lesser Restoration overpowered; either it's overpowered or it isn't. If it's truly overpowered (which I doubt), then it can be fixed in the next batch of errata, not just in the PFS guide.

Josh, if you're reading this -- I know you're probably not going to change your mind on this issue. But. Please, in the future, think twice (and maybe three times or four times) before tossing this kind of house rule into the PFS guide. And maybe discuss it with Jason first to get his opinion; if he thinks it's errata-worthy, then maybe do something about it.

(As an aside, I'm generally against having different spell levels for the same spell on different lists, and I made my opinion plain during the APG playtest -- Summon Monster IX and Maze should not be level 6 spells, for instance.)

[Majuba]

The difference in the Pearl of Power example is that it is the *Paladin* casting them. Whereas it's clerics/druids/rogues/bards/sorcerers using the scrolls they make.

LazarX wrote:

General assumption that's always been made, is that NPC Paladins and Rangers don't take Scribe Scroll as they're not trying to be either cloistered clerics or druids. There generally is even less need for Ranger scrolls as Rangers cast what very few spells they need and do without. Spellcasting is not a big priority for Paladins and Rangers and NPCs of these classes are not going to spend thier feats on scribing them.

Not to mention that even if an NPC Paladin or Ranger did take Scribe Scroll, they would probably sell them at the normal price.

MisterSlanky wrote:

For Josh's sake (in case he actually reads this thread), I'll throw my hat in the ring for "this isn't nearly as complex as James' seems to think it is, so leave the ruling as-is".

Now that my vote is cast that's the last I'll speak of the matter, since I'm already outright tired of this conversation, and it's nice to see it in a thread that can just quietly die.

+2

[Austin Morgan]

james maissen wrote:

The arcane scroll of silence goes from 200gp min to 150gp and is allowed to exist at 3rd CL rather than a 4th CL min.

The arcane scroll of freedom of movement goes from 1000gp to 700gp and is allowed to exist at 7th CL rather than a 10th CL min.
The arcane scroll of speak with animals goes from 525gp to 25gp and is allowed to exist at 1st CL rather than 7th CL min.

I know what I'm buying next :D

Except, when I start stashing cheaped-out scrolls on account of this rule, another rule will come out to fix that loophole... and on and on. Soon enough, we're all paying top dollar for crappy scrolls, simply because a few of us can figure out what scrolls are a really good deal and what aren't.

By the by, hey James: You could always start your own organized play campaign. I'd totally play in it :D

Also, just to reiterate what I've already said:

Myself wrote:

I've known for a while before this rule that a scroll of Lesser Restoration was 25gp. I STILL DIDN'T BUY IT. Why? Because it's NOT A SUPER-AMAZING ALL-DEFEATING SPELL! Sure, it's nice to have, but freaking out because it's 25gp is an overreaction.

[Imper1um]

What I don't get, is if we wanted to solve this, why don't we establish the following rules:

Level 0 remains at 12.5gp
Caster level: Price
1: 25gp
3: 150gp
5: 375gp
7: 700gp
9: 1125gp
11: 1650gp
13: 2275gp
15: 3000gp
17: 3825gp

So, if you wanted to get a Scroll of Lesser Restoration:
Cleric 2, Druid 2, Paladin 1

Cleric 2 is CL3
Druid 2 is CL3
Paladin 1 is CL4

Cost of a Scroll of Lesser Restoration (no matter which class you choose): 150gp

-----------
Delay Poison: Bard 2, Cleric 2, Druid 2, Paladin 2, Ranger 1

Ranger doesn't get Level 1 Spells until 4th Level, Clerics get it at 3rd, Druids at 3rd, Bards at 4th, Paladins at 7th.

Which means that it bumps Scrolls to the appropriate level.

-------------
I quite disagree that Scroll's Caster Level should be not included. I know we're trying to make things simple, but, let's be honest, if Caster Level was included in the equation, it would eliminate this discussion altogether.

[hogarth]

Imper1um wrote:

Cleric 2 is CL3

Druid 2 is CL3
Paladin 1 is CL4

A 4th level paladin has a Caster Level of 1 in Pathfinder. In 3.5 D&D, he had a Caster Level of 2.

Austin Morgan wrote:

Except, when I start stashing cheaped-out scrolls on account of this rule, another rule will come out to fix that loophole... and on and on.

Why is it a loophole? Note that a wizard's scroll of Antimagic Field is cheaper than a cleric's version. Is that a loophole? (I don't particularly think so.)

Austin Morgan wrote:

I've known for a while before this rule that a scroll of Lesser Restoration was 25gp. I STILL DIDN'T BUY IT. Why? Because it's NOT A SUPER-AMAZING ALL-DEFEATING SPELL! Sure, it's nice to have, but freaking out because it's 25gp is an overreaction.

Yup. :-)

[Austin Morgan]

hogarth wrote:

Austin Morgan wrote:

Except, when I start stashing cheaped-out scrolls on account of this rule, another rule will come out to fix that loophole... and on and on.

Why is it a loophole? Note that a wizard's scroll of Antimagic Field is cheaper than a cleric's version. Is that a loophole? (I don't particularly think so.)

No, I was simply agreeing with James Maissen that this rule (which is meant to increase the price for scrolls that are "too cheap") also decreases the price, and doesn't really solve anything. Rather, this rule makes a different set of spells "too cheap".

Calm down, we're in agreement. We're both on the same side. :)

[Callarek]

Majuba wrote:

The difference in the Pearl of Power example is that it is the *Paladin* casting them. Whereas it's clerics/druids/rogues/bards/sorcerers using the scrolls they make.

LazarX wrote:

General assumption that's always been made, is that NPC Paladins and Rangers don't take Scribe Scroll as they're not trying to be either cloistered clerics or druids. There generally is even less need for Ranger scrolls as Rangers cast what very few spells they need and do without. Spellcasting is not a big priority for Paladins and Rangers and NPCs of these classes are not going to spend thier feats on scribing them.

Not to mention that even if an NPC Paladin or Ranger did take Scribe Scroll, they would probably sell them at the normal price.

Exactly. Normal price is 25 gp for a scroll, 50 gp for a potion, and 750 gp for a wand. According to the standard rules, of course.

So, are the Paladins that craft out there greedy price gougers, then? And wouldn't that type of thing potentially cause them issues with their Lawful Goodness?

The problem is that the spell level for some spells is inconsistent between class lists, and sometimes you can use that to your advantage.

Sometimes it is a wash.

IMO, the best "house" rule for this situation would be that you have to purchase the spell from your own class spell list, if it is there, at the cost determined by that position on the list.

If you don't have a spell list, and use UMD for spells, you should be able to purchase the spell from the cheapest (and therefore easiest to UMD) source you can find.

Nice, easy, simple.

[hogarth]

Austin Morgan wrote:

Calm down, we're in agreement. We're both on the same side. :)

That's why I added my "Yup" up above. :-)

[LazarX]

Callarek wrote:

So, are the Paladins that craft out there greedy price gougers, then?

No... they're Ex-Paladins because they took up being merchants instead of doing the job they were created to do. A Paladin's job is to smite evil.. not play at being a magic crafter.

[hogarth]

LazarX wrote:

Callarek wrote:

So, are the Paladins that craft out there greedy price gougers, then?

No... they're Ex-Paladins because they took up being merchants instead of doing the job they were created to do. A Paladin's job is to smite evil.. not play at being a magic crafter.

At any rate, from my understanding you don't need to be a paladin to craft a potion from the paladin list (unlike spell activation items like scrolls and wands); you can ignore the required spell by increasing the DC by 5. So an alchemist should be able to craft a 50 gp potion of Lesser Restoration.

(Except not in Pathfinder Society organized play, of course.)

[Imper1um]

You could always rule that if you're aren't of the class that the scroll was crafted, you need to roll 'Use Magic Device' to utilize it. :)

[james maissen]

LazarX wrote:

General assumption that's always been made, is that NPC Paladins and Rangers don't take Scribe Scroll as they're not trying to be either cloistered clerics or druids.

But you are incorrect here, or at least the assumption is, if it exists.

The spell 'heal mount' is available on scroll as well as wand perhaps even potion. Who made it? A Paladin with the appropriate feats, no one else can do so.

Now while house rules in their entirety perhaps cannot be avoiding in an organized campaign, they can be minimized rather than to allow to bloat.

I see the start of the latter here with this rule, and want the dangers of it to be known. I'd rather see PFS avoid this pitfall that you seem to think is inevitable.

I think we can learn from these mistakes. They've been around for long enough. How many times do we have to go around without a wheel and have to 'discover' it? Between Jason and Mona the amount of Living Campaign experience PFS has there alone as a resource should allow you to avoid a preponderance of otherwise natural and unavoidable mistakes. And with the number of names I've seen that migrated from living campaigns over to this one, the combined experience should allow us to make complete new mistakes rather than hash over old ones.

-James

[lostpike]

hogarth wrote:

The point is that adding new house rules to what's in the Core rulebook is something that should be reserved for extreme cases, not just for general tinkering. Otherwise your list of house rules will just balloon without really improving the game.

In particular, there's nothing specific to Pathfinder Society play that makes a 50 gp potion of Lesser Restoration overpowered; either it's overpowered or it isn't. If it's truly overpowered (which I doubt), then it can be fixed in the next batch of errata, not just in the PFS guide.

Josh, if you're reading this -- I know you're probably not going to change your mind on this issue. But. Please, in the future, think twice (and maybe three times or four times) before tossing this kind of house rule into the PFS guide. And maybe discuss it with Jason first to get his opinion; if he thinks it's errata-worthy, then maybe do something about it.

+1

[Joshua J. Frost]

hogarth wrote:

Josh, if you're reading this -- I know you're probably not going to change your mind on this issue. But. Please, in the future, think twice (and maybe three times or four times) before tossing this kind of house rule into the PFS guide. And maybe discuss it with Jason first to get his opinion; if he thinks it's errata-worthy, then maybe do something about it.

Assume this is what happens, because it's what happens. I don't make unilateral decisions--I work with the editorial and development teams on all aspects of the Society. Don't assume that because I'm the face of the Society, that I'm also its despot.

I'm also mildly offended that you think I didn't think about this--this had a great deal of thought that went into it. I feel it's the right choice--I also feel that it's not clarified as well as it could have been and that will be rectified in 2.3.

You disagree with me--I get that. But posting something that both implicates that I don't think about the Society's decisions and that I ignore the entire editorial and development teams as part of my daily routine with the Society is both silly and frustratingly offensive.

[hogarth]

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

I'm also mildly offended that you think I didn't think about this--this had a great deal of thought that went into it. I feel it's the right choice--I also feel that it's not clarified as well as it could have been and that will be rectified in 2.3.

Why is it not in the most recent PFRPG errata then? Has Jason mentioned that it's going to go in the next batch of errata?

(I didn't mean to offend you, of course.)

[Joshua J. Frost]

You might as well ask, "Well, if you're not allowing the permanency spell in Pathfinder Society, why don't you just remove it from PRPG?" It's a silly question. The needs of the game as a whole are different from the needs of the game in an org play environment. For nearly two years we've made no bones about that.

[hogarth]

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

You might as well ask, "Well, if you're not allowing the permanency spell in Pathfinder Society, why don't you just remove it from PRPG?" It's a silly question. The needs of the game as a whole are different from the needs of the game in an org play environment. For nearly two years we've made no bones about that.

Well, banning Permanency is probably not necessary since it's really just a special case of the general "spells do not carry over between adventures" rule.

I do not believe that it's a silly question to ask why a 50 gp potion of Lesser Restoration is acceptable in a home game but not in PFS. (Well, it's "silly" in the sense that it's a trivial question, since it basically makes no difference to anyone whether it's allowed or not. But I think the larger issue about how many extra rules to add for PFS play is an interesting one.) You have every right not to get drawn into niggling arguments about it, of course. But "I gave this a great deal of thought, but I'm not going to discuss it" is a bit of a disappointing answer for me.

Again, I think you're doing a fantastic job with the PFS, so I hope you don't let my comments annoy you.

[Joshua J. Frost]

So the discussions I've taken part in re: this topic for the past several months was what? Me not discussing it?

I sort of feel like you came late to this conversation and are making assumptions about my approach to it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I still find it funny in a frustrating way that all this started over something minor, the cost of a wand of lesser restoration from a paladin versus from a cleric, and it boiled over into all this mess about potions and scrolls, in addition to wands. It was originally a discussion of what should or should not be an "always available" item, the wand, and turned into all this quibbling over small differences in costs of mainly wand, potion and scroll versions of spells that would not even be on the "always available" list to begin with.

[Joshua J. Frost]

Ultimately, it's my fault for not wording it in a way that satisfies all angles of approach to the topic. I have new wording, we will see it in v2.3, then we can start another thread and talk about why that choice was also bad. ;-)

[hogarth]

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

So the discussions I've taken part in re: this topic for the past several months was what? Me not discussing it?

I sort of feel like you came late to this conversation and are making assumptions about my approach to it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

No, I think I've been following the discussion fairly closely. But I haven't seen one post saying "It is unreasonable (in PFS, and only in PFS) to have a 50 gp potion of Lesser Restoration because of X." If someone has a link, please post it!

I've heard people say that paladins generally wouldn't be making potions, but that doesn't mean that an alchemist (or other NPC with Brew Potion) wouldn't make a cheap potion of Lesser Restoration.

[Joshua J. Frost]

I've given this a great deal of thought, I have discussed it, and there will be a change in v2.3 of the Guide.

[hogarth]

I'm cautiously optimistic. :-)

[aslak]

MisterSlanky wrote:

For Josh's sake (in case he actually reads this thread), I'll throw my hat in the ring for "this isn't nearly as complex as James' seems to think it is, so leave the ruling as-is".

Now that my vote is cast that's the last I'll speak of the matter, since I'm already outright tired of this conversation, and it's nice to see it in a thread that can just quietly die.

+3

[james maissen]

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

I've given this a great deal of thought, I have discussed it, and there will be a change in v2.3 of the Guide.

Does anyone have a link to that thread?

All I've seen is that this was to make things more simple and that some people didn't know whether or not it was legal via core rules for a paladin to make items.

-James

[Joshua J. Frost]

Are you talking about the FAQ thread?

[The Grandfather]

Hows this for simplifying the rules in PFS:

Only potions and scrolls crafted by primary spellcaster classes that prepare spells are available for organized play, i.e. made by clerics, druids and wizards.

Prices for all potions are therefore:
0 lvl = 25 gp
1st = 50 gp
2nd = 300 gp
3rd = 750 gp

And prices for all scrolls are:
0 lvl = 12.5 gp
1st = 25 gp
2nd = 150 gp
3rd = 375 gp
4th = 700 gp
5th = 1,125 gp
6th = 1,650 gp
7th = 2,275 gp
8th = 3,000 gp
9th = 3,825 gp

Potions and scrolls crafted by other classes are never available for purchase unless it has specifically been made available on one of your chronicle sheets. Bards, paladins, rangers, and sorcerers are generally speaking not classes that utilize the Item Creation feats.

Likewise spells not available on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell lists are not available in potion or scroll form.

This house rule would make the whole issue much simpler and do away with players trying to circumvent the pricing norm of the game. It also gives Paizo 100% control of which potions and scrolls they introduce into PFS play.

[UpSbLiViOn]

I am glad I have easy players.

In my games Divine magic is granted not purchased. You either find an individual(Priest, cleric, Druid, Paladin etc etc) who can teach you a prayer or whatnot or you can gain divine inspiration in one form or another and Whalaa you can cast a Divine Spell.

In the case of bards though a spell might be found on the divine list in the book bards have to go through their own process to acquire magic. We only use the spell list to find the description of a spell. Bards do not strike me as divine in anyway unless that is your character M.O... And that puts you in the above category where must find a teacher who has the favor of a deity to be able to cast a spell.

My players have never complained about this rule which to us makes sense. Why would magic gifted from a god etc be on a scroll some smuck just penned. Divine magic should be more personal, not a money making scheme. It looses some of its flavor if you can purchase scrolls.

And before anyone responds with but but but page so and so has a scroll costing whatever I realize my setup is a house rule but it is simple and requires role-playing.

Sorry for the interruption. Just tossing out a solution that has worked beautifully for my group for the last few decades(We have done this with many incarnations of D&D and now Pathfinder)..

[james maissen]

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

Are you talking about the FAQ thread?

I didn't think that I was. It came up again recently in that thread, but there you didn't make any comment beyond

"Seriously? Still?"

And I was having trouble looking back to find whatever old thread where you mentioned that it was to make things simple. This was the only thing that I had recalled you saying about why it was needed to be done.

I guess I never find changing rules to be simple, as you invariably will then have people using two sets of rules. As evidenced by the FAQ thread, people will miss such rules even when there's been so much noise on the topic.

Compared to the original 'problem' where people might have had their PCs buy a legal item that simply cost more than another legal item; here you will have either the same exact problem or PCs buying illegal items. It currently doesn't seem a solution, and it certainly doesn't seem more simple than the normal core rules.

But really, what I'm looking for on this part of the discussion is the goal that this rule is trying to achieve.

If it's that lesser restoration is too powerful for a 1st level paladin spell, then have a rule that makes it a 2nd level paladin spell. It is cleaner and propagates less into the rules.

-James

[james maissen]

The Grandfather wrote:

Hows this for simplifying the rules in PFS:

Only potions and scrolls crafted by primary spellcaster classes that prepare spells are available for organized play, i.e. made by clerics, druids and wizards.

Prices for all potions are therefore:
0 lvl = 25 gp
1st = 50 gp
2nd = 300 gp
3rd = 750 gp

And prices for all scrolls are:
0 lvl = 12.5 gp
1st = 25 gp
2nd = 150 gp
3rd = 375 gp
4th = 700 gp
5th = 1,125 gp
6th = 1,650 gp
7th = 2,275 gp
8th = 3,000 gp
9th = 3,825 gp

Well first of all, do we include the witch or not?

Secondly, your chart would make things like divine scrolls of raise dead (CL 9) merely 1,125gp rather than 6,125gp. In other words you have simplified away material component costs.

Somehow I think that this would have more balance problems than any perceived problem that spawned this issue.

Meanwhile, would it be possible to purchase an arcane scroll of magic missile (CL 9)? If so would that be for 25gp or 1,125gp or for the 225gp that core rules would place it at?

When making changes even things that sound simple at the start, aren't that way.

The Grandfather wrote:

Potions and scrolls crafted by other classes are never available for purchase unless it has specifically been made available on one of your chronicle sheets. Bards, paladins, rangers, and sorcerers are generally speaking not classes that utilize the Item Creation feats.

Let me get this straight here, so Bards don't use scribe scroll but druids out in the woods do? Moreover they get screwed in that they would not be able to buy scrolls of about half their spells. You would make a 25gp arcane scroll of cure light wounds a more rare item than either say a holy avenger or some randomly rare exotic weapon being enchanted say as +2 holy unholy that values over 72,300gp??

The Grandfather wrote:

Likewise spells not available on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell lists are not available in potion or scroll form.

This house rule would make the whole issue much simpler and do away with players trying to circumvent the pricing norm of the game. It also gives Paizo 100% control of which potions and scrolls they introduce into PFS play.

Umm.. actually its *this* rule that we're talking about that is trying to circumvent the pricing norm of the game, not the other way around!

Normal rules of the game are the formula that I listed starting this thread. A divine scroll of lesser restoration (CL 1) is normally priced at 25gp and a 1st level paladin with an 11 CHA can read it without a chance of failure.

Now perhaps we wish to change the system to have a 'real' spell level for each spell that is not dependent upon spell lists. This 'real' spell level would set magic item prices as well as set save DCs. It makes for a more complicated system, which is likely why it wasn't changed from 3.5 moving to Pathfinder. It fixes things like wanting Bards to be similar in power to wizards in regards to spells like charm monster or confusion. Rather than both classes having access to the spell at 7th level while one is defeated by minor globes of invulnerability while the other has a harder DC to resist, this rule would level the playing field. Yet its not simpler and would take a lot of getting used to... I'm guessing Pathfinder figured it wasn't worth it.

But basically you are suggesting that bards and the like be severely limited on what spells from their list they can have as consumables. This is something that LG had in place to some extent and imho was horrible as it skewed players' choices of spells known for their PCs.

Consider a bard that could either take Spell A or Spell B as a spell known. Now Spell A can be purchased in wand and scroll form, while Spell B cannot. So the bard has added pressure to choose Spell B as a spell known over Spell A. This doesn't seem right.

It does boil down to 'what's the original problem that we're trying to fix here?' and it would be nice to have that laid out.

I mean is it really those 25gp scrolls of lesser restoration? Change the level on that spell and be done with it. Don't screw over the poor bard PCs out there based on a spell that they don't even get!

-James

[Callarek]

UpSbLiViOn wrote:

I am glad I have easy players.

And higher then normal PC mortality rates, with a fair number of TPKs.

Either that, or you have given up starting your campaigns at lower levels.

This is the Pathfinder Society boards, and that is too much of a home-brew rule to be given more than a WTF?! response in passing.

The current problem can be exemplified by a short list of spells:

Restoration, Lesser; Level cleric 2, druid 2, paladin 1
The poster child that caused the current issue.
It was discussion of the costs of a Wand of Lesser Restoration that triggered the current rule:
Cleric or Druid wand: 4,500 gp; Paladin wand: 750 gp

Resist Energy; Level cleric 2, druid 2, paladin 2, ranger 1, sorcerer/wizard 2
Another spell that has been mentioned.
Cleric, Druid, Wizard wand: 4,500 gp; Sorceror or Paladin wand: 6,000 gp; Ranger wand: 750 gp

Darkvision; Level ranger 3, sorcerer/wizard 2
Turnabout is fair play, I guess.
Wizard wand: 4,500 gp; Sorceror wand: 6,000 gp; Ranger wand: 15,750 gp

Cure Light Wounds; Level bard 1, cleric 1, druid 1, paladin 1, ranger 2
And a poster child for confusion...
Bard, Cleric, Druid or Paladin wand: 750 gp; Ranger 6.000 gp
Makes it cheaper, in a normal game, for a Ranger to buy a non-Ranger wand of CLW than to make his own, after all 750 gp is cheaper than 3,000....

Just... ugly, really ugly. There is, literally, a swing of over 10,000 gp on the cost of one of the wands I list.

[UpSbLiViOn]

Callarek wrote:

UpSbLiViOn wrote:

I am glad I have easy players.

And higher then normal PC mortality rates, with a fair number of TPKs.

Either that, or you have given up starting your campaigns at lower levels.

This is the Pathfinder Society boards, and that is too much of a home-brew rule to be given more than a WTF?! response in passing.

Nope, I have many PC's that have characters that have been around for 10 year or more and no I don't fudge the rolls. My players are easy like I said because they rarely do the dumb things most do. They use there heads etc. And all my players start between 1st and 3rd level so that theory goes out the window.

We resolve MANY issues with Roleplaying and none of my players start a new character without atleast a decent background story. And if they are hunting for a new spell or I have it planned there are usualy the necessary NPC's to be found. I require training of some sort from all my players characters to advance. Nothing is for free, I drilled that into there head EARLY on and I even warn new players looking to join my games "If your lazy or want to just swing a sword my games aren't for you".

Like I said I am just making a suggestion and I know for a fact it isn't any more absurd then other suggestions here in this thread. OH wait maybe it is because I have no formula or tables =o)

[The Grandfather]

james maissen wrote:

lots

Obviously material component costs are still added to the base price. That really should go without saying on a board post... have we not all been playing long enough to know this?

Yeah, bards do get screwed... but they should get over it. It only really affects NPCs, since no PC gets Item Creation feats in PFS. As for PC bards maybe they can not use CLW scrolls, or maybe they can be permitted to use those of cleric for PFS purposes... at any rate the effect is minor, as any bard worth his salt will use wands for healing. Spell trigger items are not divided into arcane or divine items, so a bard can use the same wand of CLW as a cleric.

Anyway you look at it, my house rule suggestion is by far the simplest and easiest to understand that I have seen this far. Maybe a handfull of spells would no longer be available on scrolls... but really how many spells are we talking about here?

Personally I do not think the current PFS system should change, but IF it should change I think my suggestion is the best option. Obviously ;)

[Enevhar Aldarion]

james maissen wrote:

And I was having trouble looking back to find whatever old thread where you mentioned that it was to make things simple. This was the only thing that I had recalled you saying about why it was needed to be done.

First of all, click here for the original thread that started all of this. From this thread it boiled over into the FAQ thread and then to this one. Second, I was remembering wrong about this starting over always available magic items. That is what it turned into, along with the pricing, but it started as what you can and can't buy with 2 PA (750 gp value).

Quote:

I guess I never find changing rules to be simple, as you invariably will then have people using two sets of rules. As evidenced by the FAQ thread, people will miss such rules even when there's been so much noise on the topic.

As to this, just look at all the people who come to the forums here and ask questions about about things that are already clearly listed in the PFS Guide. Or people who post in a discussion thread saying something like "wow, I never did it that way" when it is again clearly listed in the Guide how to do something. Oh, and from what I have seen in other threads, this statement seems to come from GM's more than from players. I just wonder how many PFS members even bother to read the guide beyond the section on creating characters.

Now, for this whole mess that everything turned into and a way to simplify it again.

Scrolls, wands and potions made by wizards and clerics are by far the most common, so why not just leave all the pricing and stuff the way it is in the Core Book and limit more what is always available of those three items in PFS play to just what can be made with 1st level wizard and cleric spells, and maybe 1st level bard spells as well, so that people can have those arcane CLW scrolls they are griping about. Then for the complexity of differing spell levels of wands for PA, use the rule that Josh came up with only for this, which is all it was originally meant for anyway.

[james maissen]

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

So the discussions I've taken part in re: this topic for the past several months was what? Me not discussing it?

I sort of feel like you came late to this conversation and are making assumptions about my approach to it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not sure all that you've said on this Josh, but the gist of it was:

1. it was a loophole.
2. organized play is different than home play
3. you've thought on the matter.
4. the core rules are difficult and this makes things simpler.

That's what I've got out of what you've said on the topic, please correct me if I'm wrong or not putting things in the right light.

Some things I haven't gotten from what you've said:

1. WHY you think this is a loophole.

It's been the same since Third edition came out and hasn't changed in any revision to date. What exactly is the loophole? There are many spells that can fit into this category for numerous reasons. Is it a loophole that the Bardic Charm Monster is foiled by Minor Globe of Invulnerability while the Wizard/Sorcerer version has a higher DC? That the former can be augmented by a lesser metamagic rod but not the later?

2. HOW organized play factors into this whatsoever.

Core rules have items of value below X being available in a community of size Y with equal chance. They don't distinguish between the difficulties of someone deciding to use a sawtooth sabre rather than a longsword or the like in finding existing magic items out there for sale. I don't see what a home game would do differently beyond either making house rules or allowing PCs to be more proactive in going after their needs/desires.

3. WHAT you've weighed as the costs and gains of this change.

I don't know what you're trying to do here. The change lets some casters read some scrolls earlier and more cheaply while others must come later (even after they could cast those spells normally) and more expensive. It even creates items that don't exist in the core rules.

4. WHERE we draw the line at simplifying the core rules.

Most people are drawn to Paizo's pathfinder over 4e as the later is far too simplified, while the former is closer to the 3rd edition that we prefer to it. Afterwards we absorb the changes and loophole fixes that Paizo has made and appreciate them, but simpler is not synonymous with better. And as matter of record I don't see it as simpler, rather I see it as more complicated by its nature.

I would like to discuss this even should neither of us accept the views of the other. I don't feel it's occurred yet. I thought that perhaps I missed a prior thread where it occurred and you understandably didn't want to repeat yourself on it, but according to another poster it just started at PA purchases that was linked in a post above.

-James

[james maissen]

The Grandfather wrote:

james maissen wrote:

lots

Obviously material component costs are still added to the base price. That really should go without saying on a board post... have we not all been playing long enough to know this?

Actually one of the motivations I heard for this was based on it being an issue.

Many people it seems do not understand how scrolls work.

There is a fairly simple formula for the price of scrolls, namely
Spell level * Caster Level * 25gp + material cost.

So if you want an arcane scroll of magic missile (CL 3rd) then it would be 75gp, while an arcane scroll of magic mouth (CL 1st) would be 35gp, etc.

And wouldn't the simplest and easiest change be NOT to change anything, but rather go with the core rules as they are written?

-James
PS: You didn't address, is the witch as a prepared caster a 'primary' caster for your simple rule?

[Joshua J. Frost]

I'll be happy to leap back into this discussion after v2.3. Until then, it's a busy summer and this topic has to fall off my radar.

[The Grandfather]

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

I'll be happy to leap back into this discussion after v2.3. Until then, it's a busy summer and this topic has to fall off my radar.

A busy itinerary I believe ;)

[james maissen]

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

I'll be happy to leap back into this discussion after v2.3. Until then, it's a busy summer and this topic has to fall off my radar.

Cool, I'll look forward to hearing from you on it.

-James

[james maissen]

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

I'll be happy to leap back into this discussion after v2.3. Until then, it's a busy summer and this topic has to fall off my radar.

Hey Josh,

I hope things have recovered for you.

This came up again on the FAQ thread, and mistakenly I replied to it there and I shouldn't have.

Again mea culpa.

Could you, when you get the chance, go over what the consumable restrictions are meant to do and to not do?

I've heard many people 'explain' their guesses for this rule, but each time they seem to fall short, and would like to know.

I think it's a bad rule, but that's basing off of guesses as to the intent and I'd rather not do that.

When you get the chance,

James

[Zizazat]

james maissen wrote:

Well I don't understand the 'intent' pure and simple. I'm not pretending. I've asked what the intent was and gotten some guesses by posters, but never a direct answer. I have my own guesses, but I'd like to know as the rule falls short for all of my guesses.

The intent was to remove the very easy available loophole in terms of PFS play. Under the particular rules around organized play, house rules as you keep calling them, it's almost trivial for everyone to walk around with a wand of Lesser Restoration. This can take the teeth out of ability damage after 1 successful season 1 mod.

Quote:

In both cases this has been the case since the start of 3rd edition.

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. 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! That is quite a difference. 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:

I guess that it boils down to there is some list of spells that some people (evidently you and Josh included) find 'abusive'.

When a hyper minority case could be responsible for a hyper majority of market share, you have to ask yourself why that is.