|
We don't need formal rules and there isn't going to be a winner chosen at the end.
Michael, I'm sorry your memo must have gotten lost in the mail service. We held a vote, and I was the winner of the internets. Then we did a recount, and another recount. I am still the winner of the internets.
That is all. :D
I think your trying to help me out here fozzy and I'm thankful. But as I said before, this is a discussion, not a debate. We don't need formal rules and there isn't going to be a winner chosen at the end.Is it possible that you are in favor of the current rule simply because it is the current rule?
A false argument is a false argument regardless of the formality of the discussion.
I could simply argue "God says you are wrong." and be done with it. But again, that doesn't make my argument valid, it's simply another way to avoid discussing the actual facts.
So when I say that you are appealing to tradition, I am saying that the point you are making makes no logical sense. You are simply saying that "Well, it was good enough fer ma daddy, den it be good enough fer me." - which is a stupid reason.
So, yes, I'll continue to point out when you make stupid arguments, and it's a simply a shortcut to label them for what they are. These things have names, not because they are used in "formal debates". They have names because they are common ways that people who cannot discuss things rationally revert to when they don't have anything better to say.
The Internet Is Serious Business.
I love that video.
Right up there with Allanah Myles "Black Velvet", Nena's "99 Luftballoons" (though I'll settle for "99 Red Baloons"), J. Geils "Angle is the Centerfold", and Katrina and the Waves "Walking on Sunshine".
Thanks!
Just to make sure that we are all on the same page. This rule wasn't made to punish spell casters. Let's not just make up facts like this.
This was an effort to keep the in game economy in control. All of this has been brought up before. Feel free to search for that information on the boards.
Michael, I'm sympathetic with what I suspect the rule is trying to accomplish (I don't want level 6 scrolls of Maze more than the next guy, although that would be more easily fixed with a limit related to caster levels not spell levels), but I feel I have to bring up what you've said before:
But I feel that if enough people reported it being a problem. Then either there would be a change in the Pathfinder RPG, or in the PFS. Which is why I suggest going back to your table and observing if this problem exists with other people you play with. [..] YOu can give Paizo better feedback through experiences run at a table, rather that just giving your POV.
So where are the table experiences where the in-game economy was out of control? Neil's links didn't mention anything specific.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
J. Geils "Angle is the Centerfold",Thanks!
And sometimes spelling mistakes are hilarious. "Last month's 31 degrees was pretty hot, let's see what we've got this month..., ooh, radians! Someone's feeling kinky."
Or perhaps I'm just a math nerd.
On topic, I think the idea of a resource where players could just look up the approved price of potions, wands, and scrolls would be excellent. It doesn't seem like it would be too hard to make a big spreadsheet that could do most of the calculations. I think if I had access to a master list of legal spells I could crank out the numbers in an afternoon; the hard part would be typing all the spell names.
Stage 2 would be ruthless editing by all of you guys.
As I think a little more, spells that are not on the cleric/wizard/druid list but are on multiple other lists might be tricky as well. Are there any spells that are say Bard 1, Witch 2, and that's it? If a rogue wanted to buy a scroll of one, what would it cost?
|
|
I think your trying to help me out here fozzy and I'm thankful. But as I said before, this is a discussion, not a debate. We don't need formal rules and there isn't going to be a winner chosen at the end.Is it possible that you are in favor of the current rule simply because it is the current rule?A false argument is a false argument regardless of the formality of the discussion.
I could simply argue "God says you are wrong." and be done with it. But again, that doesn't make my argument valid, it's simply another way to avoid discussing the actual facts.
So when I say that you are appealing to tradition, I am saying that the point you are making makes no logical sense. You are simply saying that "Well, it was good enough fer ma daddy, den it be good enough fer me." - which is a stupid reason.
So, yes, I'll continue to point out when you make stupid arguments, and it's a simply a shortcut to label them for what they are. These things have names, not because they are used in "formal debates". They have names because they are common ways that people who cannot discuss things rationally revert to when they don't have anything better to say.
So you want to just sit on the sidelines and act like a referee? You're not a moderator Fozzy.
It doesn't help discussions here on the PFS boards. Please don't try and curtail people from expressing themselves, its jut rude.
Let's keep this friendly.
|
|
Just to make sure that we are all on the same page. This rule wasn't made to punish spell casters. Let's not just make up facts like this.
This was an effort to keep the in game economy in control. All of this has been brought up before. Feel free to search for that information on the boards.
Michael, I'm sympathetic with what I suspect the rule is trying to accomplish (I don't want level 6 scrolls of Maze more than the next guy, although that would be more easily fixed with a limit related to caster levels not spell levels), but I feel I have to bring up what you've said before:
But I feel that if enough people reported it being a problem. Then either there would be a change in the Pathfinder RPG, or in the PFS. Which is why I suggest going back to your table and observing if this problem exists with other people you play with. [..] YOu can give Paizo better feedback through experiences run at a table, rather that just giving your POV.So where are the table experiences where the in-game economy was out of control? Neil's links didn't mention anything specific.
The rule was made at the beginning of the campaign right from the original Society Guides, and back in the day I actually was in discussion with Josh about this at Gen Con.
So as you might have guessed, there aren't any discussions about that. But it's a legitimate question though. In defense of the decision, I think that the in game economy works pretty well.
And finally how much does a divine scroll of poison cost in PFS?
Here's an even more interesting question: How much does a scroll of Honeyed Tongue cost in PFS?
|
|
And finally how much does a divine scroll of poison cost in PFS?Here's an even more interesting question: How much does a scroll of Honeyed Tongue cost in PFS?
Following the logic and intent laid out in the v4 Guide it should be priced at Paladin 1, so 25 gp (as there is no material cost).
The only exceptions are spells that are not on the cleric, druid, or wizard spell list.
and
If a spell appears at different levels on two different lists, use the lower level spell to determine cost.
I think your trying to help me out here fozzy and I'm thankful. But as I said before, this is a discussion, not a debate. We don't need formal rules and there isn't going to be a winner chosen at the end.Is it possible that you are in favor of the current rule simply because it is the current rule?A false argument is a false argument regardless of the formality of the discussion.
I could simply argue "God says you are wrong." and be done with it. But again, that doesn't make my argument valid, it's simply another way to avoid discussing the actual facts.
So when I say that you are appealing to tradition, I am saying that the point you are making makes no logical sense. You are simply saying that "Well, it was good enough fer ma daddy, den it be good enough fer me." - which is a stupid reason.
So, yes, I'll continue to point out when you make stupid arguments, and it's a simply a shortcut to label them for what they are. These things have names, not because they are used in "formal debates". They have names because they are common ways that people who cannot discuss things rationally revert to when they don't have anything better to say.
So you want to just sit on the sidelines and act like a referee? You're not a moderator Fozzy.
It doesn't help discussions here on the PFS boards. Please don't try and curtail people from expressing themselves, its jut rude.
Let's keep this friendly.
Sidelines?
Hmm. I've stated my opinion upthread. Perhaps you missed it. The reason for my opinion.
1) Core rules specify prices for magic items. There's little ambiguity in the core rules that would need correcting by the society house rule. In fact the house rule creates confusion by specifically adding a layer of additional work on the part of the player to determine what can and cannot be done aside from what their core rulebook states can and cannot be done.
2) If the core rules are broken and unbalanced for society play, then that implies that they are broken and unbalanced for home play. Perhaps if the problem is in the core rules, then the core rules need errata.
3) No person has actually submitted any evidence of unbalance occurring because a player was allowed to purchase a level 1 Paladin's wand of restoration, lesser, or a CL9 wand of Magic Missiles. In fact the existence of CL(>1) Wands of MM on chronicles indicates that they are not inherently broken.
4) I think that Pathfinder has a good core rule set. My personal opinion is that house rules in general reflect a bias on the part of the person making the rule. When the house rules come from within the company that makes the core product, it makes me wonder about the confidence the rule maker has in that product.
5) The argument in favor of the house rule come down to: "That's the rule, why change it?" "Unnamed people have come to me and told me they like the rule." "It's a balance issue." Of these, the only the last is the one that really bears scrutiny, as the argument for tradition and argument by anecdote are simple hand-waving to distract from actual examination of the issues.
6) If the argument of "balance" is to be made, it appears to be heavily contradicted by the allowance of much more powerful items (the previously mentioned +1 Human Bane Longbow springs immediately to mind.)
7) Further, the aforementioned bow much more resembles the dreaded crafting than does the CL9 wand, as it is adding multiple components together to form something that would not normally be available. (Without the availability of crafting, a character would normally purchase a masterwork long bow. Sometime later he would sell the longbow for half price to buy a +1 bow. Later still when he could afford it, he would sell the +1 bow at half price to purchase a +1 Human Bane bow. During the course of these transactions, he would spend 375 for the MW bow, and then sell it for 187.50. He would then spend 2375 for the +1 bow and later sell it for 1187.50, finally spending 8375 for the +1 human bane bow. Over the course of theses transactions, in PFS, he saves a total of 1375gp because he essentially gets to upgrade the item - essentially getting the crafting feat for free.
8) While the archer is getting free crafting for an item that will be used (quick back of envelope calculation - 4 combats per scenario, 4 rounds per combat, rapidshot for 3 shots per round, used over 5 levels (call it levels 6-11) = 4 * 4 * 3 * 5 = 240 times. PFS scenarios tend to be human-foe heavy, so let's call that 50% of the shots going against humans, assume a hit rate of 75%, each one dealing an extra 2d6+2 (9 points) of damage = 240 * .75 * 9 = 1620 extra damage), the mage is told that no, purchasing a CL9 wand which only has 50 charges (which will deal 50 x 5 * (d4+1=3.5) = 775 damage) is broken. Even on a per round basis (3 * .75 * 2d6+2 = 20.25 damage per round versus (5 * (d4+1) = 17.5 damage per round for the wand), the bow outshines the wand. Yet the wand is considered too powerful, and the bow is not. I find no logic in this argument.
9) Left without an actual sound reason for the rule, the only conclusion that I can draw is that the rule exists because of a personal bias of the rule maker. This in itself does not condemn the rule, as the GM has the right to run whatever campaign he wants. However a little honest as to motives would be welcome. I would be happier if the people espousing the virtue of the rule would simply admit that it reflects their personal bias instead of hand waving some false flag of fairness.
10) Given past behaviour indicating future behaviour, I make the assumption that this entire argument will simply be hand-waved away with some other invalid reasoning (of the "well, I ben hearin lots diffrent from de playas, so I be right" variety), which is why I have contented myself to simply pointing out the invalidity of the arguments, rather than restate the valid arguments that others on the thread have already made contra the current rule.
|
I can't believe we're still having this discussion. Its' been over a year and, really, there's no chance of any kind of reversal (At least until the campaign is inevitably ended and restarted for PF2E, a development that is at least five years out from today since it's not even on the radar at Paizo.)
It's pointless. The rule is simple even if the writing isn't. And furthermore, it will never change and railing against it like this is just spinning wheels and getting in the way of what the real discussion should be - how to clarify it.
I don't know what you're referring to in this thread, because I think there are 2 or 3 different discussions going on.
Regardless, I never buy the it will never change line. One of my guiding principles is "be mindful of tradition, but never be a slave to it." Just because something is and always has been doesn't mean that's how it will stay in the future. Some things PFS ruled right, others are clear that PFS ruled in the wrong (higher CL consumables, 5-star GM requirements). The great thing is these things can and should change. I look forward to the new PFS coordinator cleaning up these issues and making decisions that will help put many of our current discussions to rest.
J. Geils "Angle is the Centerfold",Thanks!And sometimes spelling mistakes are hilarious. "Last month's 31 degrees was pretty hot, let's see what we've got this month..., ooh, radians! Someone's feeling kinky."
Or perhaps I'm just a math nerd.
Heh. Angle. She may be obtuse, but she's hot.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It has been explained and no one is interested in explaining it again.
No, it hasn't been explained Michael. Or if it was, way back when originally, then not a single person could point me to those posts. I know because I looked for them for quite some time.
I'm sorry that it has never been explained to you james.
Not once
or twice
Not getting the answer you want is not the same as not getting an answer.
Quoted as it seems to have been missed (though I am only skimming posts at this point).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Following the logic and intent laid out in the v4 Guide it should be priced at Paladin 1, so 25 gp (as there is no material cost).
The intent is to make cut-rate paladin wands of Lesser Restoration unavailable, but to make cut-rate paladin wands of Honeyed Tongue available?
<raises eyebrow>
|
|
Mark Garringer seemed to agree with that idea, and honestly that's the cardinal rule of thumb when making house rules- directly solve the issue.
See Michael, I told you I won the internets! Gosh, I get almost as many shout-outs in that reply as Josh. I am the end all, be all of Pathfinder Society opinions. My word is law, defy me at your peril!
And, lord knows even prior to being a Venture-Captain I have never been mistaken about anything. I wish I was more perfect so I could be a better example to everyone in the community. Why weren't the Venture-Captain shirts +5 Rules Adjudication? *sobs*
SnippedYou weren't defending your position, you were just taking a whack at James, which as far as I can tell, is more or less on your side.
Huh?
Wow. You've taken an entire 10 point argument, and simply snipped it and replaced it with a complete fabrication of what you think that argument was.
I don't think I've taken a single "whack" at James, except for one post days ago where I jokingly said that I slept better at night knowing that he was unhappy with arbitrary house rules. I think James has made valid argument after valid argument that you and other VC's have simply ignored in favor of maintaining the status quo, even when he points out the stupidity of the argument.
James, If you think I've taken a "whack" at you, please let me know where I need to rephrase my argument. I salute your willingness to continually engage. (I'd make some comment about casting pearls before swine, but doubtless some VC would think that I was insulting pigs, so I will not.)
|
|
snippedSnippedYou weren't defending your position, you were just taking a whack at James, which as far as I can tell, is more or less on your side.
1) as I said before this is a discussion, not a debate. I don't have to address your 10 point argument.
2) you just accused James of making a logical falicy. Go back and read your posts.The appeal to tradition, remember?
snippedSnippedYou weren't defending your position, you were just taking a whack at James, which as far as I can tell, is more or less on your side.
1) as I said before this is a discussion, not a debate. I don't have to address your 10 point argument.
2) you just accused James of making a logical falicy. Go back and read your posts.The appeal to tradition, remember?
No, I did not accuse James of making an appeal to tradition. James is making the argument that the core rule book provides a simpler, more consistent means of pricing and purchasing scrolls. This is a valid argument that he has backed up with examples and facts. It is not an appeal to tradition.
If he were arguing that the previous method was better simply because it was the previous method, then that would be an appeal to tradition.
You have simply failed to comprehend the difference.
1) as I said before this is a discussion, not a debate. I don't have to address your 10 point argument.
I'm not trying to be snarky, but positing that you don't have to address any arguments does conveniently sit with your overall position---defending the status quo. You'd be far less able to do so "credibly" if you were arguing for changes. Perhaps that's the thing that's driving these folks crazy.
Also, I don't think it's unreasonable for individuals to ask that rules of any kind (which are usually based on logic rather than idle whimsy) be addressed at a fully logical level. It also seems fair to ask that that the underlying logic for rules be re-evaluated for fallacies, inconsistencies, and bias when such issues come up.
If that level of discussion doesn't appeal to you, perhaps you ought to stop responding rather than antagonizing people by seeming to ignore their arguments. Your position in the hierarchy generates a lot of inferential context and expectations.
Rubia
You said that very well. Thank you.
|
|
I'm not trying to be snarky, but positing that you don't have to address any arguments does conveniently sit with your overall position---defending the status quo. You'd be far less able to do so "credibly" if you were arguing for changes. Perhaps that's the thing that's driving these folks crazy.
There seems some truth to that. I think that they are under the misconception that we want the rules to remain as they are all the time. I'm not at leave to discuss much, but we see the Guide to Pathfinder Society to be a living document. It means there will be changes from time to time and feedback is important. I and the other VCs are paying attention as well as others from Paizo.
And as frustrating and dismissive as it seems, I stay out of debates for that exact reason. If I was to debate all the points people brought up I would shut myself off to their potential. James and Fozzy have points, I'm sure others feel like they do. So rather than try and "beat" them in a debate, I'd rather take their POV and measure it against what others have said and experienced. Believe me, the VCs talk about this stuff.
Also, I don't think it's unreasonable for individuals to ask that rules of any kind (which are usually based on logic rather than idle whimsy) be addressed at a fully logical level. It also seems fair to ask that that the underlying logic for rules be re-evaluated for fallacies, inconsistencies, and bias when such issues come up.{/QUOTE]
Nether do I. But I also don't think that using debate rules like a bludgeon to get your way is strategy to help your case. It's not like there is a judge out there who will suddenly say "Eureka, he has hit upon the truth! henceforth the rule shall be such!"; Although my fellow VCs beg to differ.
It's my position that this forum should be a discussion forum. If you have a position that some thing is wrong, convince me, sell me, but lets stop the debate gamesmanship that is being used to sideline discussion.
If that level of discussion doesn't appeal to you, perhaps you ought to stop responding rather than antagonizing people by seeming to ignore their arguments. Your position in the hierarchy generates a lot of inferential context and expectations.[/Quote}
I'm not going to start censoring myself when people put things out of context, its unfair to PFS to do so. It's also unfair for you to ask me to do so. The purpose of the PFS forums are to promote PFS, not tear it apart.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Consider this one vote for a threadlock. No one is saying anything that hasn't been stated already.+1. This has been discussed in multiple other threads.
If I'm not mistaken, it seems the primary content of this thread is one side saying "I don't like X" and the other side saying "X is fine", over and over again.
So you guys are probably right about it being worth ending. I'm not sure what either side is (or ever was, unless I'm forgetting something) trying to accomplish.
|
|
Nether do I. But I also don't think that using debate rules like a bludgeon to get your way is strategy to help your case. It's not like there is a judge out there who will suddenly say "Eureka, he has hit upon the truth! henceforth the rule shall be such!"; Although my fellow VCs beg to differ.It's my position that this forum should be a discussion forum. If you have a position that some thing is wrong, convince me, sell me, but lets stop the debate gamesmanship that is being used to sideline discussion.
I just thought I'd comment on these portions of your post.
Many people feel that "debate rules are used to bludgeon" people into a particular point of view. This is an unfair characterization of the logical process.
The *purpose* of logical discourse is to self-mediate intuition. Humans have made many intuitive claims that were dead wrong, and it took a (series of) logical argument(s) to explore all avenues and conclude that no path led them to a justification for that intuition.
I've looked at the posts in this thread extensively. And I'm not judging the content of the discussion, but I don't see any argument that has devolved into lawyering.
I'm not going to start censoring myself when people put things out of context, its unfair to PFS to do so. It's also unfair for you to ask me to do so. The purpose of the PFS forums are to promote PFS, not tear it apart.
I didn't ask you to do so. I made a suggestion. Furthermore, with the approach you've taken (i.e., choosing not to respond to arguments), there is little that you can accomplish with additional posting. THAT was the point of my post.
Rubia
I haven't missed your point. You made a suggestion (which is a recommended corse of action) and I responded (to your recommended course of action).
And you are putting words in my mouth. I've never claimed that there wasn't value in logical arguments. But there are ways in having this discussion in less regimented ways. I have doubts that in your day to day conversations that you present anyone with a 10 point argument with a friend or peer and expected a point by point response. I could be wrong, actually I praying it so.
Nether do I. But I also don't think that using debate rules like a bludgeon to get your way is strategy to help your case. It's not like there is a judge out there who will suddenly say "Eureka, he has hit upon the truth! henceforth the rule shall be such!"; Although my fellow VCs beg to differ.It's my position that this forum should be a discussion forum. If you have a position that some thing is wrong, convince me, sell me, but lets stop the debate gamesmanship that is being used to sideline discussion.
I just thought I'd comment on these portions of your post.
Many people feel that "debate rules are used to bludgeon" people into a particular point of view. This is an unfair characterization of the logical process.
The *purpose* of logical discourse is to self-mediate intuition. Humans have made many intuitive claims that were dead wrong, and it took a (series of) logical argument(s) to explore all avenues and conclude that no path led them to a justification for that intuition.
I've looked at the posts in this thread extensively. And I'm not judging the content of the discussion, but I don't see any argument that has devolved into lawyering.
I'm not going to start censoring myself when people put things out of context, its unfair to PFS to do so. It's also unfair for you to ask me to do so. The purpose of the PFS forums are to promote PFS, not tear it apart.
I didn't ask you to do so. I made a suggestion. Furthermore, with the approach you've taken (i.e., choosing not to respond to arguments), there is little that you can accomplish with additional posting. THAT was the point of my post.
Rubia
I haven't missed your point. You made a suggestion (which is a recommended corse of action) and I responded (to your recommended course of action).
And you are putting words in my mouth. I've never claimed that there wasn't value in logical arguments. But there are ways in having...
And you misstate the facts.
You made the comment that I was standing on the sidelines rather than stating my own arguments.
"So you want to just sit on the sidelines and act like a referee? You're not a moderator Fozzy.
It doesn't help discussions here on the PFS boards. Please don't try and curtail people from expressing themselves, its jut rude. "
So I "get off the sidelines", and state my reasoning.
Which you simply ignore.
If you believe it is rude to point out that specific arguments are nonsensical, and that nonsensical arguments should be accepted with as much validity as reasoned arguments, then I'm afraid that you won't find a lot of politeness in life.
"I've never claimed that there wasn't value in logical arguments."
Well, gee, that's good. So it seems that you ascribe some value to logical arguments? Do you ascribe more or less value to them than illogical arguments?
Perhaps this whole thread should simply be preserved as an example of why players I've met at cons and at the FLGS tend to hold VC's in less than high regard. The smugness and condescending attitude don't serve you or Paizo in great stead.
|
|
I haven't missed your point. You made a suggestion (which is a recommended corse of action) and I responded (to your recommended course of action).
And you are putting words in my mouth. I've never claimed that there wasn't value in logical arguments. But there are ways in having this discussion in less regimented ways. I have doubts that in your day to day conversations that you present anyone with a 10 point argument with a friend or peer and expected a point by point response. I could be wrong, actually I praying it so.
Fair enough. A discussion of a rule strikes me as something that warrants logical discussion and responses to "10 point arguments". The conversation in this post is not casual; it is a highly technical discussion about perceived rules complexity (or lack thereof). The specifics matter, and I'm not sure how a conversation about specifics can happen without those specifics being discussed.
And no, I don't, in normal conversation, regiment my responses solely according to logic. I don't have to because I just bludgeon people to death with real hammers, so I don't require a logical hammer. :)
Rubia
Ok, I almost snorted out soda onto my monitor with that last one. Touche' sir, Touche'
|
|
Which you simply ignore.
I didn't ignore then, I just didn't reply to them.
My lack of reply doesn't constitute to a slight on my part. You appeared to me to be stating that James had made a logical fallacy. It was a curt response that seemed out of context. It certainly didn't seem that you were trying to help him.
And since were on the topic of logical arguments:
Well, gee, that's good. So it seems that you ascribe some value to logical arguments? Do you ascribe more or less value to them than illogical arguments?
Really??? A straw man??? I know, I know, if logical arguments aren't my bag I should bring it up. Caught of guard.
Man, I've tried to reach out to you. You seem to have a real chip on your shoulders when it comes to the Venture Captains. But here is a bet. I bet you that if you met me in real life, we would more than likely get along.
And I'm not being a smart ass, snarky or ironic. We have different view point. We both want PFS to be successful. I bet if we tried we could come up with 100 other ways we were alike. We just seemingly disagree on a couple of things.
And even though I stand by what I've said, I'm sorry if I upset you. It's not my intention. If we every meet at Gen Con, lets hit the Ram, first one is on me. (Disclaimer: You must be of age, otherwise, my offer is a soda at the snack bar. ) If all you want to do is call me names and question my lineage at that point, it's all good. But before you make your mind up on what sort of people the VCs are, you really should get to know us.
Which you simply ignore.I didn't ignore then, I just didn't reply to them.
My lack of reply doesn't constitute to a slight on my part. You appeared to me to be stating that James had made a logical fallacy. It was a curt response that seemed out of context. It certainly didn't seem that you were trying to help him.
And since were on the topic of logical arguments:
Well, gee, that's good. So it seems that you ascribe some value to logical arguments? Do you ascribe more or less value to them than illogical arguments?Really??? A straw man??? I know, I know, if logical arguments aren't my bag I should bring it up. Caught of guard.
Man, I've tried to reach out to you. You seem to have a real chip on your shoulders when it comes to the Venture Captains. But here is a bet. I bet you that if you met me in real life, we would more than likely get along.
And I'm not being a smart ass, snarky or ironic. We have different view point. We both want PFS to be successful. I bet if we tried we could come up with 100 other ways we were alike. We just seemingly disagree on a couple of things.
And even though I stand by what I've said, I'm sorry if I upset you. It's not my intention. If we every meet at Gen Con, lets hit the Ram, first one is on me. (Disclaimer: You must be of age, otherwise, my offer is a soda at the snack bar. ) If all you want to do is call me names and question my lineage at that point, it's all good. But before you make your mind up on what sort of people the VCs are, you really should get to know us.
You are right. It was a strawman. And I will retract that set of statements, and replace it with:
It seems to me that by that statement you are implying that logical arguments only hold _some_ value, and this would seem to imply to me that arguments that are not based on logic hold some, if not more value to you.
Sorry, don't drink. Gave it up some 30 odd years ago when I left high school.
Yes. I would like PFS to succeed. I would like Pathfinder to succeed. It is my opinion that having a self-consistent set of rules is fundamental to a game's success. As Rubia kindly pointed out, and did so more diplomatically than I, discussions of rules are by their very nature logic-based rather than feelings based.
I would challenge you to point to any names that I have called you, or any questioning of your lineage that I have done. I have stated what I see your attitude as being, but this is neither name calling, nor a questioning of lineage. Again. You misstate the facts. Some might call this a lie, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that point.
|
|
Sorry that might have sounded like I was putting iwords in your mouth.
For the record you have never insulted be or name called.
I was trying to be self effacing by saying that you could if you wanted too. In other words get off your chest anything you wanted.
But the offer for a beverage (soft drink, iced tea, fruit smoothy, OJ, milk) is still open. Honestly I don't really drink that much either. I can count the amount of beers and drinks I've had this year on one hand and have fingers left over. Milk is my greatest addiction.
There goes my reputation with the VCs.
|
|
I think there is a simple solution to the issue:
1. You may only purchase scrolls or wands of spells that are on your class spell list(s).
2. You may purchase them at any valid caster level and use the most favorable pricing from your class spell list(s).
The downside is that fighters, rogues, etc. can no longer purchase wands of CLW for the party healer to use on them and Use Magic Device has been rendered largely useless, but the loopholes have been closed.
If someone wants to multiclass into paladin to get a 1st level scroll or wand of lesser restoration, who cares? With a level 12 cap, people don't have much room to multiclass to get item access.
I think there is a simple solution to the issue:
First state the issue: We don't like that because Paladins have lesser restoration as a 1st level spell that there are 25gp divine scrolls, 50gp potions and 750gp wands of lesser restoration.
Second make a minimally evasive solution: These exact three items are not available in PFS.
Done. No stepping on ANY toes other than directly removing the 3 items that the powers-that-be have decided don't work for their campaign.
-James
I'm trying to think if there are any other candidate spells that are particularly onerous to some players.
I'm not coming up with anything.
I don't think it's particularly fair to paladins to single out one of their few spells, but really it does seem the simplest, least invasive house rule.
It fits my personal preference of "If you feel you simply must create a house rule, make it as simple and minimally invasive as possible."
So, the preferred wording of such a proposed fix would be:
"Wands, scrolls, and potions of Lesser Restoration may only be created at caster level 2." ?
Or would you prefer:
"Wands, scrolls, and potions of Lesser Restoration are unavailable in Pathfinder Society Play."?
Developer
|
I think there is a simple solution to the issue:
1. You may only purchase scrolls or wands of spells that are on your class spell list(s).
2. You may purchase them at any valid caster level and use the most favorable pricing from your class spell list(s).
The downside is that fighters, rogues, etc. can no longer purchase wands of CLW for the party healer to use on them and Use Magic Device has been rendered largely useless, but the loopholes have been closed.
If someone wants to multiclass into paladin to get a 1st level scroll or wand of lesser restoration, who cares? With a level 12 cap, people don't have much room to multiclass to get item access.
While it sounds good on paper, the economic cost of playing a healer would be pretty draining. Many PFS players sink 2 PP into a wand of cure light wounds as soon as they have 2 PP to sink. This is so the burden of healing can be shared at lower level tables. People do not UMD these wands, they hand them to the healer so that she's not bearing the full cost on her own wand.
I like this sort of thing. It shows cooperation that goes beyond the table at hand, as the player bought an item he could not use so that resource sharing is more equitable. A good sign for our community. It's not something I would want to see stifled.
Your suggestion comes from the right place. You seek a simple fix to stop the arguing, and avoid what some see as a loophole, but this goes a bit far. The existence of cheaper 1st level versions of some spells isn't a reason to punish UMD-focused characters or those who buy wands in the hopes a caster can use them. It's actually quite an extreme response.
I think the simple solution proposed would lead to more arguing, instead of solving it. We argue about a great deal here; just look at the animal companion thread to see if arguing stops. We're a group of people who all seriously enjoy this game and want it to thrive. Some of us have different ideas as to what that entails, and because we're so passionate about the hobby we argue and discuss. I don't think there's any fix that could stop that. I'm not sure I'd want it stopped. The concern and care I see on these forums, on both sides of issues, is a good sign that there are a lot of people who really care about this game.
I don't love the rule, but I don't feel it needs to be changed. So too with higher CL wands. That one, though, I'd rather see changed, but I can live with it.
I'm trying to think if there are any other candidate spells that are particularly onerous to some players.
I'm not coming up with anything.
I think I heard similar grumbling about the ranger version of Resist Energy, and I suspect there would be some raised eyebrows about summoner scrolls of Haste (among other spells from the summoner list).
I think I heard similar grumbling about the ranger version of Resist Energy, and I suspect there would be some raised eyebrows about summoner scrolls of Haste (among other spells from the summoner list).I'm trying to think if there are any other candidate spells that are particularly onerous to some players.
I'm not coming up with anything.
I bow to your superior spell list knowledge.
Hmm. Haste, Resist Energy, Lesser Restoration. Seriously I don't feel any of these three are game breaking heavy hitters requiring specific house rules, but again - if a house rule is necessary, then make it as least onerous as possible.
"The following spells may not be created as wands, scrolls or potions:
Haste
Lesser Restoration
Resist Energy"
It could even be implemented as part of Additional Resources, so that new material that might be targeted for house rule could be called out.
Again. Not a fan of house rules, but that seems a whole lot less of a pain in the asterisk than the current situation.