RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hang on a sec.
As a player, I have on occasion let a colleague use a potion that I've purchased, letting a fighter move somewhere invisibly, or a rogue slip into an area under the effects of a gaseous form.
As a GM, I've seen players give one another curative potions.
Alex, are you saying this is impermissible?
|
|
Hang on a sec.
As a player, I have on occasion let a colleague use a potion that I've purchased, letting a fighter move somewhere invisibly, or a rogue slip into an area under the effects of a gaseous form.
As a GM, I've seen players give one another curative potions.
Alex, are you saying this is impermissible?
No, but the point is I can't have you buy me a sword and "loan" it to me forever.
|
This brings up a question I have had for awhile. Scenario: One PC gives a 2nd PC a potion, the potion is used during the scenario. At the end of the scenario the 2nd PCs buys the same potion and wants to give it to the first PC. (I said this wasn't allowed, and explain why). The 2nd PC says that he would still buy it and cross it off his chronicle sheet as used and the 1st PC would not cross the potion off his sheet (essentially, the PCs exchanged potions, but nothing changed on chronicles). My initial reaction was to not allow this either; but in the spirit of Pathfinder cooperation, I did. It hasn't come up since but I'm wondering if I handled this correctly. I also wonder if there is an official way for players to replace items they used that belong to another player. I have only GM'd low tier scenarios, but I could see this being a bigger issue once you run into higher level potions/scrolls.
|
|
Savokk,
Unfortunately what they did was not legal (though not a big deal so no need to go back and change anything). As of now there is no official way of replacing another characters equipment. What is encouraged though is having players carry equipment they can not or do not intend to use but instead loan out at the start of scenarios. Even if you are a non-caster you should really invest in Wands, Scrolls, and spell components so you're not always mooching off others.
|
|
I think it's more that they don't want a level 5 PC giving a level 1 PC a +1 sword as a gift. I hope it's obvious why that would be bad.
Just to illustrate this:
When I first started playing in OP campaigns (in 2001), one of the campaigns I joined was Living City. In that campaign, all magic items were "certed" -- if the party found a +1 longsword in the treasure during an adventure, there was a certificate ("cert") for that item, and only one PC at the table could walk away with it. Certs could be traded between characters (you had to sign the back of the cert, and put your RPGA number on the back).
I quickly became friends with several long-time RPGA / Living City players, whose characters had tons of magic items, many of which they no longer used. By the time my bard was 2nd level, he probably had 10,000 gp worth of magic items, thanks to the kindness of my new friends, who said, "here, I don't use these anymore, go ahead and take 'em". All perfectly legal, but it meant that my bard was substantially overpowered for his level, due to all of this phat loot.
|
So basically in the Motto 'explore,report,cooperate', they don't want you to cooperate too much
The rule is there to maintain balance really, otherwise you could play in a Sub-tier 1 to 2 scenario and find a PC steals all the screen time because they have +5 magic swords, armour, wands of Cure Critical Wounds etc that were sold to them by higher level characters (possibly their own alternate characters) for a pittance.
E.g. an 11th level character plays down in #4–04: King of the Storval Stairs (Tier 7 to 11) and sells some high power magic items to a 7th level character for 1 GP each. That character then in turn plays #4–05: The Sanos Abduction (Tier 3 to 7) again playing down and sells those items on again for 1 GP each to a 3rd level character. That 3rd level character then plays #4–07: Severing Ties, playing down to sub-tier 1 to 2 where you are just playing your 1st level character.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically in the Motto 'explore,report,cooperate', they don't want you to cooperate too much
Actually, I read it kind of the opposite of that. The system encourages gift-giving (of consumables) and sharing (of items that will be returned at the end of the scenario) but discourages—or outright forbids, rather—remuneration for those kinds of things. Pay it forward!
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Ok, how about this situation: A character at the table has a very expensive consumable that it's not really in his best interest to use on a particular adventure. In the specific example I am thinking of, it's a 250 GP potion in a Tier 1-2 scenario that nets around 500 gold. Could the players agree to all chip in to replace this potion if they felt that it would help the party?
|
|
Ok, how about this situation: A character at the table has a very expensive consumable that it's not really in his best interest to use on a particular adventure. In the specific example I am thinking of, it's a 250 GP potion in a Tier 1-2 scenario that nets around 500 gold. Could the players agree to all chip in to replace this potion if they felt that it would help the party?
Nope.
|
|
I agree that characters should not be able to sell items to one another. I think that there should be a distinction between permanent items and consumables. There is currently no method for a player to replace those consumables they used that were given by another character (if they want to).
What about raise dead cast by another player? If the cleric needs to raise 2 players in the middle of a scenario that's 10000 gold (2 5000gp diamonds), after an adventure those same players could pay the 5450 each to have it cast as a spell casting service.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I once used up 2 of my scrolls of lesser restoration on a party member. I don't think it should be against the rules for that player either to purchase 2 scrolls and give them to me later in the adventure, or to just pay me the 300gp for the cost of them.
However I can see the need for rules against the gifting of items, or any trades where the GP amount that is exchanged is not equal.
|
|
What about raise dead cast by another player? If the cleric needs to raise 2 players in the middle of a scenario that's 10000 gold (2 5000gp diamonds), after an adventure those same players could pay the 5450 each to have it cast as a spell casting service.
Well the cleric would need to have those diamonds on him to cast the two Raise Deads. Otherwise, you're going back town anyway for components, so the PCs (or at least their corpses) can pay for them there anyway.
It's not ideal, but once you can afford it, it's a good idea to have the 100gp worth of diamond dust for a Restoration on hand. Or better yet buy a scroll. If you can afford it, having the 5000gp diamond on you for a potential Raise Dead would also be nice, but most players prefer to spend the gold on equipment to prevent them from dying in the first place.
|
|
I once used up 2 of my scrolls of lesser restoration on a party member. I don't think it should be against the rules for that player either to purchase 2 scrolls and give them to me later in the adventure, or to just pay me the 300gp for the cost of them.
I don't disagree with this, assuming it could be implemented in a way that is not subject to the abuse discussed above.
However...
It is not unreasonable to tell other players that they should purchase their own scrolls of Restoration should they wish for it to be cast on them later. I've said this before, but I think I'm going to start saying it a lot more:
You are not entitled to XP, PP, or healing*
*or removal of ability damage or status effects
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I once used up 2 of my scrolls of lesser restoration on a party member. I don't think it should be against the rules for that player either to purchase 2 scrolls and give them to me later in the adventure, or to just pay me the 300gp for the cost of them.I don't disagree with this, assuming it could be implemented in a way that is not subject to the abuse discussed above.
However...
It is not unreasonable to tell other players that they should purchase their own scrolls of Restoration should they wish for it to be cast on them later. I've said this before, but I think I'm going to start saying it a lot more:
You are not entitled to XP, PP, or healing*
*or removal of ability damage or status effects
I agree but when you are out in the field, sometimes it is better to use your resources to keep the party at full strength, as opposed to trying to teach a Player a lesson about gaming courtesy.
|
|
Ok, how about this situation: A character at the table has a very expensive consumable that it's not really in his best interest to use on a particular adventure. In the specific example I am thinking of, it's a 250 GP potion in a Tier 1-2 scenario that nets around 500 gold. Could the players agree to all chip in to replace this potion if they felt that it would help the party?Nope.
Actually, if it isn't a single item available purchase, the PCs could head for a town, chip in to buy another one, and use that one during the adventure instead.
And what potion costs 250 gp?
50 gp for a 1st level potion, 300 gp for a second level potion...
Oh, and to another poster, remember that the material component part of the Restoration spell is actually semi-variable. 100 gp ios fine for many uses, but it is 1000 gp for removing permanent negative levels.
And, if you have multiple permanent negatiuve levels, only one can be removed per week, so the second negative level from a Raise Dead cannot usually be removed until the 'tween scenario time.
|
|
Hang on a sec.
As a player, I have on occasion let a colleague use a potion that I've purchased, letting a fighter move somewhere invisibly, or a rogue slip into an area under the effects of a gaseous form.
As a GM, I've seen players give one another curative potions.
Alex, are you saying this is impermissible?
Well, if you wait a few hours you CAN get the potion back if you reaaaly want it...
|
Actually, I read it kind of the opposite of that. The system encourages gift-giving (of consumables) and sharing (of items that will be returned at the end of the scenario) but discourages—or outright forbids, rather—remuneration for those kinds of things. Pay it forward!
I agree with this sentiment. It's polite to carry around your own healing, even if you can't use it. The rule against trading also fosters altruism among players. I know my bard carries around a scroll of breath of life to be used on himself or others. Sure, it was expensive, but he'd rather the mission succeeds with everyone intact.
|
It's actually considered a good tactic to buy something that you plan to lend out to another player in your party that you can't use.
A wand of cure light wounds is the most common example, but a low strength wizard who carries around a +1 adamantine longsword for the party's fighter would work just as well.
In any case, the original person who owns the item, keeps it at the end of the scenario.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Ok, how about this situation: A character at the table has a very expensive consumable that it's not really in his best interest to use on a particular adventure. In the specific example I am thinking of, it's a 250 GP potion in a Tier 1-2 scenario that nets around 500 gold. Could the players agree to all chip in to replace this potion if they felt that it would help the party?Nope.Actually, if it isn't a single item available purchase, the PCs could head for a town, chip in to buy another one, and use that one during the adventure instead.
And what potion costs 250 gp?
50 gp for a 1st level potion, 300 gp for a second level potion...
Oh, and to another poster, remember that the material component part of the Restoration spell is actually semi-variable. 100 gp ios fine for many uses, but it is 1000 gp for removing permanent negative levels.
And, if you have multiple permanent negatiuve levels, only one can be removed per week, so the second negative level from a Raise Dead cannot usually be removed until the 'tween scenario time.
Oil of Silence. In a particular recent scenario, I was playing a gunslinger who was the only one with the ability to overcome a particular creature's DR. I didn't actually have the Oil of Silence, but if I had, I would have been in a bit of a quandary. As a level 2, 250 GP is a substantial amount of my current WBL - on the other hand, the fact that I didn't have it meant that I was practically useless for the scenario. Admittedly, not a real issue, more of a thought experiment.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An Oil of Silence, as a 2nd level spell, should cost 300 gp.
You're mixing up an oil of silence and an oil of silence.
|
|
And, someday, Bruno, my whip wielding Lore Warden is going to have a Dueling Dueling whip....
Not energetic enough to put in links, one is from the APG/UE, the other is from the PSFG.
does this mean that,(desending into sillyness)
if you had two weapon fighting, you could duel weld Dueling Dueling whips?
Spelling police, please pull over:
descendingdual
wield
You would need something like superglue to duel weld whips together. ;)
But, yes, TWF with whips would work, so dual wielding dual Dueling Dueling whips would be possible, even if it is at the 2 one-handed weapons penalty.
Or you could challenge someone to a duel with dual dueling dueling whips...
Actually, I read it kind of the opposite of that. The system encourages gift-giving (of consumables) and sharing (of items that will be returned at the end of the scenario) but discourages—or outright forbids, rather—remuneration for those kinds of things. Pay it forward!I agree with this sentiment. It's polite to carry around your own healing, even if you can't use it. The rule against trading also fosters altruism among players. I know my bard carries around a scroll of breath of life to be used on himself or others. Sure, it was expensive, but he'd rather the mission succeeds with everyone intact.
I also agree, my rogue carries not only a wand of CLW, but I've also invested in a few scolls CLW, mage armour, enlarge, and oil of magic weapon. If party survives you survive, thus investing in the the party is investing in yourself
|
|
What if we treated player transaction no different than "store" transactions?
The seller gets half, the purchaser pays full, transaction have the same limitations as store/faction purchases. Thus a lower level character could never acquire items they normally wouldn't be able to, and no player economy is born because the transactions are identical to typical purchases through vendors/factions.
This is no different how it works now - with one exemption - you could trade items on the chronicle.
Player a buys item x on his chronicle, sells it, gets 50% back and player b buys it.
Player b buys item y on his chronicle, sells it, gets 50% back and player a buys it.
You just invented chronicle trading for a 50% extra cost. I wouldn't go there.
|
|
Brett
This is how I read your suggestion and how it enables access to restricted items.
Player a buys item x on his chronicle - an item to which player B has no access, sells it, gets 50% back and player b buys it.
Player a loses 50% as he only buys it with the sole purpose to sell it to player B. Because he loses out money, player b return the favour.
Player b buys item y on his chronicle - an item to which player A has no access, sells it, gets 50% back and player a buys it.
Net effect - you buy something for approx. 150% that is on the chronicle of another player.
|
|
Ya know, if the party thinks they will need something consumable, they all chip in at the start, if it doesn't get used, it gets sold back for 50%.
And, of course, if your PC thinks non-consumable item X is useful in the hands of frequent co-adventurer Y, but Y can't afford it, or X has a spare, it is easy enough to lend it to him for any joint adventures.
All this buy/sell/sell/buy stuff is just hurting my head.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But they can't all chip in ... consumables have to be purchased by a single player, who records it in his/her chronicle (whether kept or sold back for 50%, which would also be recorded).
Your second point is spot on, though. If I think that the party would greatly benefit by someone having access to something, and they can't afford it, I'd be willing to buy it for my "general supply".
|
|
This brings up a question I have had for awhile. Scenario: One PC gives a 2nd PC a potion, the potion is used during the scenario. At the end of the scenario the 2nd PCs buys the same potion and wants to give it to the first PC. (I said this wasn't allowed, and explain why). The 2nd PC says that he would still buy it and cross it off his chronicle sheet as used and the 1st PC would not cross the potion off his sheet (essentially, the PCs exchanged potions, but nothing changed on chronicles). My initial reaction was to not allow this either; but in the spirit of Pathfinder cooperation, I did. It hasn't come up since but I'm wondering if I handled this correctly. I also wonder if there is an official way for players to replace items they used that belong to another player. I have only GM'd low tier scenarios, but I could see this being a bigger issue once you run into higher level potions/scrolls.
The best logic I've seen applied to this says that as long as PC #2 buys the same item, 'returning' the loaned/used potion/scroll to PC #1 before the end of the scenario, PC #2 simply bought the item for and used the item on, himself! The only 'tweak' was the order in which it was done. So, as long as it's not illegal to buy and use potions, you're good. The order really shouldn't matter.
|
|
So what it is sounding like is most GM's already allow a players to trade items, they simply Rule 0 it. Why not make it so every GM does not have a variance for this specific rule? If the rule is routinely broken at tables the rule may be the problem.
I'm pretty sure that "most" GMs are not allowing players to trade items. They do allow players to loan items, with anything not consumed in the adventure returning to the original owner. Allowing players to trade items is quite clearly against campaign rules.
|
|
I see it as:
1) Players may use the items they own.
2) Players may expend the consumables they own.
2) Players may choose to expend and loan consumables on other players or NPCs. Any consumables expended in this way can not be payed for or gifted back.
3) Players may loan non-consumables to other players but the item returns to the original owner at the end of the scenario.
That's it.
|
|
player's can loan consumables to other players, if they get used during the course of the scenario they get used off the original players sheet.
Suggestions for this include wands that the PC can't use (CLW comes to mind) and a scroll of breath of life.
I offered to loan my wand of MM to a PC who specialized in fire based spells, when we walked through the gates of hell :)
usually the loan is "use this if x happens to me" but not always :)
|
|
My alchemist has started handing each of the PCs several alchemical items... which he crafts. For example, at the start of a 'crawl, while standing outside the cavern mouth, he said..."now is the time to drink the Anti-Toxin, Anti-Plague, & Sooth Syrup I gave each of you..." and the monsters in the cave mouth rushed him. Sigh...
On a good note - it actually made a big difference later in the game.
Cost to my PC? 6 sets A.T., A.P., &S.S. about 250 gp... or less than a second level potion. Results? +5 saves for Poison, Disease, Sickened for an hour.
|
|
But they can't all chip in ... consumables have to be purchased by a single player, who records it in his/her chronicle (whether kept or sold back for 50%, which would also be recorded).
Got a citation for that?
I remember it was stated that you can chip in on something, say a scroll of Plane Shift, at the beginning of an adventure where your group thinks they are likely to need it. If it gets used, it is gone. If it doesn't get used, it is sold back, and everyone only loses half of the money they spent at the beginning on the scroll.