It is stated in the rules that you may not sell items to other players, however, you can let them borrow or use (consume) one of your items.
I can certainly understand not selling items for profit (increased cost), but why can’t you sell an item to another character at book cost?
I am not talking about wearable items, but mainly consumables. I know more than once it has happened in a scenario where one of the other party members has needed a potion of CLW (CMW) or a toxin.
I am one of the first players who would be willing to use my wand or dump a potion down someone’s throat if it is needed. That is part of what teamwork is, but why can’t the party member be reimbursed for it?
I can understand not being reimbursed for wand charges, that’s just how it works out and is getting a bit nit picky on each charge in regards to gold, but I don’t see why you can’t be reimbursed for singular items like a potion, toxin or consumable item in general.
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West
|
There are some consumables that are only available on chronicle sheets such as poisons. Instead of making numerous exceptions, it's probably easier to just say no to all of it.
Also, alchemist PCs would be that a workaround for everyone's alchemical consumable hoard.
It's essentially the same reason why crafting is not allowed. Between classes that get innate discounts on items (like alchemists), and people with vanities/boons that allow them to get certain items on the cheap, it would be a imbalance to the whole wealth-by-level curve that they're trying to follow. (A small inbalance, in my opinion, but can add up over the levels if done repeatedly.)
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
That's all well and good, but some players end up taking big losses for it. Expensive consumables like Oils of Daylight, Scrolls of Breath of Life or even Wands of Cure Light can be easily used up for the good of the table, with no ability to compensate the PC who is spending all that cash. Unfortunately, it also seems to always be the same players who come prepared or unprepared, so we are in essence rewarding the unprepared PC. As a result, why would anybody come prepared?
To fix this, I believe that PFS should allow a table to all pitch in to replace a used consumable.
Yes, I see your point, people would try to buy otherwise unattainable items besides through a chronicle sheet.
But if even there was a line put in the rules “Players may only buy consumables off of another player if it falls under the ‘Buy any time’ list” that would cover most of what I am referring to. And it would prevent people selling their +1 sword to another player for full price.
And really, I’m just talking about instances here where you help someone out during the scenario with one of your potions or consumable mundane items and being reimbursed at the end of the session.
Also, alchemist PCs would be that a workaround for everyone's alchemical consumable hoard.
Again, the rule of only being able to purchase consumables on the ‘buy any time’ list would cover this.
That's all well and good, but some players end up taking big losses for it. Expensive consumables like Oils of Daylight, Scrolls of Breath of Life or even Wands of Cure Light can be easily used up for the good of the table, with no ability to compensate the PC who is spending all that cash. Unfortunately, it also seems to always be the same players who come prepared or unprepared, so we are in essence rewarding the unprepared PC. As a result, why would anybody come prepared?
To fix this, I believe that PFS should allow a table to all pitch in to replace a used consumable.
Yes, this is exactly my point. And I have heard how people will pitch on for a Raise Dead, I don't see why you can't purchase a consumable item from a player if they were able to help you from dying or give a benefit on your saving throw.
|
Here's an example of why this gets complicated...
As the adventurers are standing outside of a Dungeon Crawl, setting up long term buffs - my PC, (an Alchemist) hands each of the other PCs 3 vials.
My PC: "Drink these - Anti-Toxin, Anti-Plague, Soothe Syrup - they're good for the first hour. After that, if it looks like we'll still be there, I'll give you another."
Other guys PC: "I've got my own..."
My PC: "Yeah, and I get these at a discount and I know mine work. save yours... Just consider it part of The Toasters Service."
Cost to my PC to make them is 1/3 what it would cost to have your PC buy me a replacement... so if you pay me for them, which price do you use?
There are LOTS of these corner cases. And for each rule you add, there will be at least 3 different ways it's done. ("the right way, the wrong way and the army way!").
The Toaster,
Of course you would need to buy the item(s) from the Alchemist at full price. Other players would not get the discount.
And really, I think it even says already that the Alchemist cannot craft any alchemical items for anyone else, so that is already covered.
We are talking about here something that you bought for yourself, but helping the party out through a tough instance and giving it to someone else to use. I don’t see why the player shouldn’t be allowed to pay you for it.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's all well and good, but some players end up taking big losses for it. Expensive consumables like Oils of Daylight, Scrolls of Breath of Life or even Wands of Cure Light can be easily used up for the good of the table, with no ability to compensate the PC who is spending all that cash. Unfortunately, it also seems to always be the same players who come prepared or unprepared, so we are in essence rewarding the unprepared PC. As a result, why would anybody come prepared?
To fix this, I believe that PFS should allow a table to all pitch in to replace a used consumable.
It is my understanding that when you borrow something, you replace it, otherwise it wasn't borrowed at all. For instance, if I ask to borrow a dollar from you for bus fare, you should expect that I will give you back a dollar when I can.
Based on this understanding of borrow, I have always required characters to replace consumables that they borrowed from another character. This is a little different from paying the other character for it--the character who originally owned the item does not gain any money from this exchange, but instead gains only a replacement copy of the borrowed item, and the cost is deducted from the borrower. This understanding of borrow has been a huge boon to every table in which it was applied and leads to friendlier, happier, and more cooperative tables, for exactly the reason you mention. I understand that there will be table variation where some GMs do not run borrowing this way, but I intend to continue unless MJM specifically weigh down on another definition of borrow, which I sincerely hope they will not. I don't like making the consumable prep speeches I used to have to make before the borrow clarification, not least of which because it once led to the only table of PFS I've ever played where another player got mad at me (did not want to prep consumables, but wanted the other characters to use their consumables on him anyway, considering me to be presumptuous when I said something like "Before we start, you might want to buy ItemX and give your copy to me. If you do, I will spend my own actions to use it on you, even if it puts me in great risk, but if you don't and the worst happens, I'm sorry.").
Rogue, that is an interesting interpretation of borrow. And if that is true, that would work and be fine with me.
But doesn’t it say the PCs may borrow or use items from another player? Which gives me the impression is you are borrowing something non-consumable (weapon, armor, backpack, etc) and using up an item if it is a consumable.
|
|
Rogue, that is an interesting interpretation of borrow. And if that is true, that would work and be fine with me.
But doesn’t it say the PCs may borrow or use items from another player? Which gives me the impression is you are borrowing something non-consumable (weapon, armor, backpack, etc) and using up an item if it is a consumable.
My interpretation is that borrow is as above, and use is when the item's original owner says "Oh that's alright, just drink the potion; it's on the house" rather than "I'm letting you borrow this. I expect it, or a replacement, back when we get back to Absalom."
|
|
My interpretation is that borrow is as above, and use is when the item's original owner says "Oh that's alright, just drink the potion; it's on the house" rather than "I'm letting you borrow this. I expect it, or a replacement, back when we get back to Absalom."Rogue, that is an interesting interpretation of borrow. And if that is true, that would work and be fine with me.
But doesn’t it say the PCs may borrow or use items from another player? Which gives me the impression is you are borrowing something non-consumable (weapon, armor, backpack, etc) and using up an item if it is a consumable.
Actually, most judges (even me) run it like you discribe above... which is actually against the rules (at least, as they were explained in a number of posts some time back). I'll see if I can find the older posts...
|
|
edit: Check out what the VOs are saying here.
one of the quotes:
"If you give another player a consumable to use, be it Potion, Wand, Scroll, or Spell Component, and it is used by that other player the player that used it cannot reimburse the player he took it from.
To the OP, I would suggest in the beginning of the scenario explain to the players you can't afford restoring them all if they need it so they should buy the component themselves for you to use on them."
|
|
edit: Check out what the VOs are saying here.
one of the quotes:
"If you give another player a consumable to use, be it Potion, Wand, Scroll, or Spell Component, and it is used by that other player the player that used it cannot reimburse the player he took it from.To the OP, I would suggest in the beginning of the scenario explain to the players you can't afford restoring them all if they need it so they should buy the component themselves for you to use on them."
I'm thinking of that thread, actually, as my last memory of this matter popping up (I'm in there, I'm just posting as my cleric who used to have to make those speeches, my only character from before the borrowing clarification). It seemed to me to have ended inconclusively (or at least nondefinitively) with respect to borrow/replace--the only thing that should be clear to all of us, no matter what we do on the borrow topic, is that you may never, ever pay gold to another character for items or services rendered such that it adds a gold piece value to their character sheet.
EDIT: As to the quote in your edit. Dragnmoon is a cool guy. I enjoy having him on the boards, and his ruling is certainly also a reasonable interpretation of the same text. I'll go with it without a quibble at his tables. But he's not any more official than you or I are.
|
|
Yeah, it's a grey area... and often the judge just turns "a blind eye".
But it's also kind of built into my PC "The Toaster" - who regularly hands out buffs to other PCs (I even found a way to hand someone else a "Breath Of Life" that anyone can apply as an attack! - It's great to watch a Barbarian charge 80' across the board to BoL someone who just went down).
The Toaster,
Of course you would need to buy the item(s) from the Alchemist at full price. Other players would not get the discount.
And really, I think it even says already that the Alchemist cannot craft any alchemical items for anyone else, so that is already covered.
We are talking about here something that you bought for yourself, but helping the party out through a tough instance and giving it to someone else to use. I don’t see why the player shouldn’t be allowed to pay you for it.
??? you lost me somewhere.
My PC hands your PC 120gp worth of consumables - long term buffs. Your PC drinks (uses) them. You are saying your PC should pay mine what?
a) 120gp (what it would cost your PC to buy/replace these items)? or
b) 40gp (what it cost The Toaster to make)? or
c) 0gp (the current rule)?He also hands your PC several buffs - most common ones I hand out are Cures, Shield, Fly, Darkvision, Blur, Displacement, ... all work like potions, but are at The Toasters CL. Does your PC have to pay me for those too?
Do you really not understand what I was getting at? It appears from your more recent posts in this thread you do.
Where did you get that I feel casters should be paid for casting spells (buffs) on other players? Besides, there is a big difference in casting a spell on someone else (usually free) than giving them a consumable that you paid for.
But I am talking about consumables, that you bought for yourself, but give to someone else to use during the session as you are trying to work together to get through the scenario.
As the rules state, you cannot be reimbursed for doing so, and I was asking why.
But it appears this has been clarified in the thread linked that you cannot be reimbursed, which I think is disappointing.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
RE: I often allow it at my tables and I have seen it allowed at other GM's tables. I've also seen other GMs not allow it. I believe that it should be explicitly stated that the party may reimburse a player for used consumables during a game, so long as the PC does not earn money from the exchange and the PC pays their fair share. Either way, it is something that should be addressed, as the GtOP is a bit vague on this point.
It appears that many GMs here allow characters to reimburse and I think that’s great, but I also don’t like having to break the rules to do so.
I just don’t see any good reason not to allow it officially.
What about people pooling their money together on a Raise Dead for a character who died? I’ve read in another thread it is something that happens relatively often, but is that another ‘look the other way’, or is that ok under the rules?
|
|
The Toaster,
Of course you would need to buy the item(s) from the Alchemist at full price. Other players would not get the discount.
And really, I think it even says already that the Alchemist cannot craft any alchemical items for anyone else, so that is already covered.
We are talking about here something that you bought for yourself, but helping the party out through a tough instance and giving it to someone else to use. I don’t see why the player shouldn’t be allowed to pay you for it.
??? you lost me somewhere.
My PC hands your PC 120gp worth of consumables - long term buffs. Your PC drinks (uses) them. You are saying your PC should pay mine what?
a) 120gp (what it would cost your PC to buy/replace these items)? or
b) 40gp (what it cost The Toaster to make)? or
c) 0gp (the current rule)?He also hands your PC several buffs - most common ones I hand out are Cures, Shield, Fly, Darkvision, Blur, Displacement, ... all work like potions, but are at The Toasters CL. Does your PC have to pay me for those too?
Use the cost required for the supplying character to replace the expended item.
In Pathfinder Society Organized Play, you may never buy items from, sell items to, or trade items with another player. You may, however, allow another player to borrow an item for the duration of a scenario. You are also permitted to spend your character’s gold to help a party member purchase spellcasting services such as raise dead or remove disease.You can loan your wand out, and if it was used it comes back with fewer charges; if it happens to come back with 0 charges, the borrower cannot reimburse you. The same is true for a potion or scroll, except that it only has a single charge. This is why it is really important for characters to proactively carry items to be used by the party cleric/wizard/whatever on their behalf, so that that person isn't constantly spending their own money.
Also, Hobbun - that is the quote that specifically allows the party to chip in for the raise dead.
Yes, that is how I understood how it worked as well (but missed that part on spellcasting service from another player, thanks for clarifying).
I just don’t see a reason (or agree) why the no reimbursement rule needs to be in place.
|
Here's an example of why this gets complicated...
As the adventurers are standing outside of a Dungeon Crawl, setting up long term buffs - my PC, (an Alchemist) hands each of the other PCs 3 vials.
My PC: "Drink these - Anti-Toxin, Anti-Plague, Soothe Syrup - they're good for the first hour. After that, if it looks like we'll still be there, I'll give you another."
Other guys PC: "I've got my own..."
My PC: "Yeah, and I get these at a discount and I know mine work. save yours... Just consider it part of The Toasters Service."Cost to my PC to make them is 1/3 what it would cost to have your PC buy me a replacement... so if you pay me for them, which price do you use?
There are LOTS of these corner cases. And for each rule you add, there will be at least 3 different ways it's done. ("the right way, the wrong way and the army way!").
I just thought it was good marketing promoting Toaster's Choice!
|
|
I just thought it was good marketing promoting Toaster's Choice!Here's an example of why this gets complicated...
As the adventurers are standing outside of a Dungeon Crawl, setting up long term buffs - my PC, (an Alchemist) hands each of the other PCs 3 vials.
My PC: "Drink these - Anti-Toxin, Anti-Plague, Soothe Syrup - they're good for the first hour. After that, if it looks like we'll still be there, I'll give you another."
Other guys PC: "I've got my own..."
My PC: "Yeah, and I get these at a discount and I know mine work. save yours... Just consider it part of The Toasters Service."Cost to my PC to make them is 1/3 what it would cost to have your PC buy me a replacement... so if you pay me for them, which price do you use?
There are LOTS of these corner cases. And for each rule you add, there will be at least 3 different ways it's done. ("the right way, the wrong way and the army way!").
"All part of the service! (Please ignore the times I throw bombs short and scorch friends...)"
;)The Toaster loans you the following alchemical items:
1 vial anti-toxen, (+5 alchemical bonus on Fortitude saving throws against poison for 1 hour)
1 vial anti-plague, (+5 alchemical bonus on Fortitude saving throws against disease for 1 hour)
1 vial wismuth salix, (+2 alchemical bonus on Fortitude saving throws against effects that inflict the nauseated or sickened condition. If you drink a vial of it while suffering from the nauseated or sickened condition, you may immediately roll another saving throw (with the +2 bonus).
or
The Toaster loans you the following:
A flask with a green lid holding -
Ambrosia: (A.R.G. Pg 87)
Upon consumption, this heavenly elixir, brewed from holy water and blessed herbs, grants a +2 sacred bonus on saving throws against negative energy, energy drain, and death effects for 1 hour, including saves to remove negative levels. Ambrosia affects undead and evil outsiders as holy water.
|
|
Excluding wands of CLW, this has only come up once for me. Since any consumable found in the scenario can be used in the scenario, the party pooled all the gp found in the first encounter (each guard has X gp). They then went to 'Al Ways Avail' potion shop and picked up a CLW potions for each of them. Of course this was in Cassomir, and there was no time crunch. It would be different in a small town or aboard a ship, or if the downed player was bleeding out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Check the FAQ and the additional resources for ultimate combat again. Wizard/Magus/Bard/Sorcerer bonded items can be upgraded for the crafting cost. Gunslingers purchase ammo at the crafting cost. Alchemist is not the only class that gets nice things.
I've seen many GMs rule as has been described. Basically letting a player purchase an equal item (for whatever it would normally cost them) after the fact, and letting whichever character owned the item that was actually used leave it on their sheet. Technically not legal, I think, but definitely appreciated at most tables. I can't really remember if it's come up when I've GMed yet.
|
|
There's an ongoing debate about whether or not the Arcane Bond item upgrades are purchased or crafted, but does it really matter that much in this context? The point is, someone with PFS has looked at crafting and decided what to allow and what not to. Maybe allowing Alchemists to use Craft: Alchemy was part of evening things out for them for losing Brew Potion. I'm not opposed to a crafting rule that allows something similar to what you have stated (although alchemical items are crafted at 1/3 cost, not 1/2), but I also think simpler is better in most cases for PFS. Expanding it to include all craft skills, though, could be problematic when people want to craft their Adamantine Full Plate armor. Suddenly there is a significant wealth change. Unless that's not what you were suggesting, but your proposed wording doesn't exclude it.
Time is not an issue in alchemist crafting for PFS unless you're trying to do it within the scenario, since there is a nebulous unlimited amount of time between scenarios. So there's no restriction on how many items an alchemist can craft between scenarios, just like the Fighter doesn't have to wait two weeks for the wizard he hired to upgrade his belt of strength to +4. It just happens. If you can take 10 to make the alchemical item, you don't have to spend any in game time making it.
Real world time is an issue for PFS, though, and the more you allow crafting and "selling" of crafted items at the crafting cost, the more in game time will be spent with players figuring out what items they want to purchase from the alchemist while they've got him at the table. There's precedent for that kind of thing with the spellbook/witch's familiar rules, but it is a factor to consider.
I think formalizing a rule to allow replacement of a consumable item at the end of the scenario might be good, as it would encourage people to share their resources during the scenario (something I do anyway, because I'd rather have the Fighter alive than save 250gp by not casting Stoneskin on him or 1125gp by not using my Breath of Life scroll) but it should probably require the character to buy the replacement at whatever the cost to them would be and not at the cost to the owner of the item used, to keep things simple and to avoid altering the wealth balance PFS has created.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one have enforced this rule, and it was not popular. This is what I here when people keep saying they dont like it, " I didnt come prepared so can you save me and I will just take it out at the end". Well what if you cant pay them back cause your dead, or didnt earn enough? Not that it will probably happen, I know. But here is another option instead of trying to get the rule changed or doing it against the rule as we know it to be, BUY what you will need to survive.
|
I for one have enforced this rule, and it was not popular. This is what I here when people keep saying they dont like it, " I didnt come prepared so can you save me and I will just take it out at the end". Well what if you cant pay them back cause your dead, or didnt earn enough? Not that it will probably happen, I know. But here is another option instead of trying to get the rule changed or doing it against the rule as we know it to be, BUY what you will need to survive.
Right...because every player knows to buy what they need EVERY TIME. Seriously, I'm a consumable whore. I regularly blow through 1-2k of consumables in a scenario (usually because I'm dumb and play up a lot...even when I KNOW it's a bad idea because I ran it :P ). Would it be nice if the party could pitch in a replace some of those consumables that saved their bacon? Yes. Am I gonna demand or even ask for it? Not really. Now I do know of some players who don't use consumables at all and hoard their money into perma items to do more damage, have better DC or what have you. Here's the thing...I LOVE to play with those folks. They make it so I generally have to use my consumables less for one thing...but they also let me shine when I pull out the scroll that totally saves everyone. They contribute in their way to get the job done...I do it in my way. With a mix of people like me with people who specialize, you find that you don't die often, succeed more mission and that to me = fun.
Jeff,
"Always come prepared" is sometimes easier said than done. It's one thing if someone doesn't come prepared at all. They are new player, or they don't want to spend the extra money.
But those of us who are more experienced and smarter, we do our best as possible to prepare for scenarios, but sometimes you still can come up short, it just happens.
You poured your Oil of Magic Weapon already on your sword to take on that Barghest, you may have already used your two anti-toxins when fighting three encounters with spiders. Or, you may pour your last CLW potions down someone's throat to stop them from dying.
Those are situations where the players have been prepared, but still have used their items. It's easy to say "Well, you should have bought 'x' more of them." But these are not cheap, and especially for someone who is low level you sometimes can't afford to buy enough to be prepared for everything.
Also, I never go into a scenario tapping myself out on funds, so I would never rely on paying someone back on the money I gain from the session. And if I was ever in a situation where I needed someone else's potion/item to help me, I would never take it if I couldn't afford to at that time.
And to be honest, to allow others to reimburse one another of items used is not going to really make all that much difference. It isn't going to break the game or make anyone more rich. The potion/item is still expended and the gold is still spent.
I would rather give the option for players to be reimbursed than for people to hold onto and use the items only for themselves and someone dies because they used one anti-toxin or CLW potion too many.
|
|
"All part of the service! (Please ignore the times I throw bombs short and scorch friends...)"
;)
** spoiler omitted **...
I just made up an alchemist the other day. I may steal this when I actually get around to playing him (GM credit character for now).
My only question is, how does The Toaster handle bagels?
|
|
Well what if you cant pay them back cause your dead, or didnt earn enough?I'm totally confused by this comment. Are you saying that we shouldn't allow people the option of giving back a consumable because they might die and not be able to buy the item?
So your rationale here, is that allowing buy backs runs the risk that people will give out items and then not get them back because of death or poverty is a worse situation than the risk of people letting others die because they can't get reimbursed?
Yeah, I'm a little confused by it as well. Bottom line, I'm not going to withhold a consumable that another character needs, whether I'm going to get reimbursed for them or not. I've already spent the money on it, so I'd rather use it and have everyone survive the scenario than hoard it and risk failure or someone dying. To me that's just part of "Cooperate." It would be nice to have an official way for the other character to show their gratitude by replacing what was used, but I'm not the type to care or complain if they can't, or to get upset over that 300gp potion of Cure Moderate Wounds when the other player has just had a character killed.
Now, I might, OOC after the game, mention to the player that they should carry some consumables for similar situations in the future, because it's not always a guarantee they'll be at a table with someone who does. When no one has a potion of fly, and the Demons are attacking from 10 feet up with reach weapons, it won't end well.
I've started asking the GM ahead of time while everyone is gathering at the table whether the scenario allows us time to shop. If the answer is yes, we'll have time to buy things, then I'll say things like, "Does everyone have a way to fly? Does at least one of us have a way to cast Daylight?" I find all that normally wasted time while you're waiting on the last player to show is a good time to get shopping out of the way, and gently suggest things the rest of the group might need. Compare spells with the other casters. That kind of thing. All stuff that could be assumed to happen in game after being given the mission (on scenarios that have that kind of time), but without taking up time in game to figure it all out. Sometimes something comes up in the mission briefing that necessitates additional planning, but a lot of basic things can be dealt with before hand.
If the GM says "No, you won't have time to shop," or "I can't tell you that," then I'll know I'm probably stuck with what I have, and hopefully everyone planned ahead.