|
I think what he's saying is having a...thing to deal with the situation is certainly believable. having 5 to deal with the same thing should raise some eyebrows, or at least merit a question, especially if the thing in question is a more obscure ruleset, like, say, baleful polymorph. having a newt bead makes sense. having 10? you might get asked about it. (keep in mind my Wizard carries 3, cause being turned into a flying hurricane generating toad sucks.
It's awesome, but it sucks when you have to look at your class abilities to try and contribute something to the party.
[/digress
|
Before:
Chronicle: Items, gold per item, total gold.
Sheet: Items.Now:
Chronicle: Total gold.
ITS: Items, gold per item.
Sheet: Items.
OK...so the "less is better" argument isn't sticking for everyone...
Now, I know that I have something of a distain for bureaucracy, so maybe the following line of reasoning will not resonate with everyone, but here is my big question:
Why is this inventory tracking system change necessary in the first place?
If it is to (A): help people add and subtract, then perhaps the current tracking sheet is not a great way to do it. Many of the real expendable items are hovering at or below 50 gp. Someone who constantly forgets to subtract his first level scrolls would give himself a large caster advantage. Liquid Ice is tapped at 40 gp. Acid, 15. Wands should really be consumed on the character sheet — the player who still has a sparkling new wand of CLW he picked up at level 1.1 is suspicious.
And the arrows and bullets...I constantly over tally on arrows because I have to buy the damn things is packs of 20. I don't have rapid shot in multiples of 20, so when I shoot my ~28 arrows, I just drop 6 gold and donate the extra arrows to the teen archery club.
For the folks who have problems maintaining a running, detail oriented log, they really need a spreadsheet or some ledger (like a checkbook) that is more advanced then the current tracking sheet. For me, I do not find the tracking sheet a useful to help me stay organized.
50 gp is too large of a unit to be realistic but small enough to be a royal pain-in-the-butt.
Maybe we can make the tracking sheet optional? We are all adults, right? There isn't one *best* way to stay organized.
If we are making the tracking sheet to (B) stop cheaters, then we have to admit the current ITS is a mess. All of the gold still has to be added up on the chronicle sheets for a full audit. It is most convenient for the auditor to see the big expenses on the sheets as he tallies. To...
Actually, my Druid bought a CLW at 1.2, and had used only 5 charges by level 4 because in 5 of the next 8 scenarios we had a Kyra or another channeling healer. ;-) It took him to 9th level before being used up.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
If you're playing at my table, and you suddenly pull out of your handy haversack exactly the scroll, potion, enchanted item, ... needed to deal with a problem, I might raise an eyebrow. The second time you do it, perhaps I'll ask you to tell me how long you've been carrying that around.
That saddens me.
You know why?
I was playing Ksenia and she got blinded. Gm asked my my action. I said "move: pull out my potion of remove blindness. Standard: drink it. Free: make a rude gesture to the bbeg."
"You have a potion of remove blindness?"
"Yup. Right next to the scroll of remove deafness."I showed him the item on my herolab printout and we moved on. No concern i was chesting no need to dig through my its. When I got home I pit in the journal entry. "Used potion of remove blindness. Bought potion of remove blindness.". That was the end of it.
That you automatically become suspicious of a crazy prepared character worries me.
Samiel (my archeologist) has been carrying around an elixir of spirit sight and a stun stone for most of his career. That he carried them is going to make you doubt my honesty? No thank you.
Read what you just wrote. Your GM asked you about the potion of remove blindness; you showed him where it was on your inventory; the game moved on.
If I asked you about it (which I probably wouldn't even do the first time), exactly the same would happen.
It's not doubting your honesty in particular; it's just that I've encountered players who always have exactly the potion they need, and not any of the similar restorative items (such as, in your example, that scroll of remove deafness), just as I've encountered players whose initiative rolls, saving throws, etc., are statistically extremely improbable.
I ask everybody to roll dice openly, and leave them on the table where they can clearly be read. That doesn't mean I suspect everybody of cheating; it just means that I am aware there are some cheats out there, and I don't want to make it too easy for them.
Similarly, I'll occasionally ask anybody who produces an unexpected item, spell, etc. about it; not because I distrust them, but as a subtle warning to anyone considering on-the-fly additions to their inventory. Showing me a pre-printed herolab character sheet listing a whole bunch of potions, scrolls, etc., would be more than sufficient; showing me a hand-written, much-erased sheet with pencilled-in items all over the place could prompt me to ask you to have a slightly better organized list with you the next time you're at my table.
This only curtails the spontaneous opportunist; it doesn't address the determined cheater who reads the scenario beforehand, and picks exactly the best character from their stable to handle the major problems, with exactly the right roster of spells memorised. Sadly I've encountered one of those (and, I rather suspect, at least one more). Anyone who will go to that level is probably quite prepared to adjust inventory items as well. There's not a lot I can do about that without a full character audit, and nobody has time for that at a game day or convention.
|
Due to the health and circumstances of my region, I cannot support and will actively fight any movement to make the ITS no longer mandatory.
I have to ask: Does your region presently consist of 4-7 reliable players, 1-3 (mostly 1) reliable DMs, a Venture-Captain who hangs on out of sheer dedication in spite of personal hardship, and *0* Venture-Lieutenants? Do your Pathfinder Society meetings have a sort of "Billy Joel's 'Piano Man'" feel to them?
In my region's time, it's had to deal with a lot of crap: A few cases of cheating, Extremely Unpleasant People (if you're unfamiliar with the sort I'm talking about, your life is charmed), flakes, ships-in-the-night, an aggressively small mind or two, the death of a widely-liked player (and their old friend, until then a very reliable player, never coming back afterwards), a moving-away or two, DMs quitting for reasons ranging from being upset by Paizo's handling of the Shadow Lodge to being scared away by the original organizer (the original organizer being an EUP who was eventually ostracized), and miscellaneous personality/scheduling conflicts a-go-go.One thing we've never had problems with? Accounting (with the exception of needing to correct the results of one honest mistake we'd made early on that forced me to recalculate the gold/Prestige awards/expenditures of one or two characters across multiple Chronicles - the new sheets, had they been around then, would only have made the process WORSE).
That sounds like your area has had some terrible problems in the past, and I'm glad that you've managed to work around them and are still playing. However, be aware that regions are vastly different and therefore we have vastly different problems.
Philly's problems are different. With some notable exceptions, we've been a healthy community socially, but people's characters are another story. Philly has a reputation of being a power-gaming region with a lot of players who like to build weird or interesting builds. And while we like talking about our builds, we don't always show all the work we put into them (because when do players look at other players character sheets?) so new players especially tend to get into bad habits where they think that they can run their character in their heads/not need as much on paper as they should. The ITS helps me fight against this.
mcruggiero:
Sure, the fact that there have been audits have helped. But the fact that ITSs exist makes it so much easier to do those audits and also it makes it clear what the campaign expects each player to have for tracking of their character. Also, when I do check ITSs, it makes it visible to newer players that everyone is keeping track of their equipment, so they should be too. Instilling good habits and all that.
--
I understand if they seem like unnecessary paperwork to other people, and if your region has no problems with accounting, then that's great! However, please don't pretend that every region is the same and that it doesn't solve any problems in any region, because that is blatantly not true.
|
As a player, I use Hero Lab. I have begun putting my detailed purchases in each adventure's journal, and then put the appropriate stuff on my ITS (and if I buy stuff after a game, I make sure the GM of my next game knows so he or she can initial those purchases on the next chronicle.) I use HL to subtract charges from wands, etc. I find the ITS is far more handy for me to tack ammo/wands during a game. As a player, I like the ITS as a tool to help me track and manage my stuff.
And, I suppose if I wanted to, I could write a nifty little program to grab the XML of the journal from HL (assuming that's how it exports) and import it into my own ITS.
The ITS is good because it gives each person flexibility - as long as it has the minimum information, do whatever.
As a GM,I find it incredibly helpful to quickly look over purchases and inventory (and I usually look for wands and the like, so if a wand has only a few charges, I can expect that it might run out.)
I get that the ITS isn't for everyone, I really do. However, I think the benefits of the ITS outweigh the costs (and no, I don't think it really requires more work, honestly, but it can if you want it to.)
Mark
|
|
I can't speak for everyone's experience with the ITS, but I can say that I've discovered some interesting things over the course of using it: namely that several of my characters had bought the same thing multiple times: My wizard had bought cloaks of resistance +1 three separate times, and my monk had 2 belts of strength +2.
Now, I don't even have a "gear" section on my character sheet for most of my characters: I just use my ITS for my equipment section.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the benefits of the ITS outweigh the costs (and no, I don't think it really requires more work, honestly, but it can if you want it to.)
you know its really weird to tell people that something isn't more work when you're using a 60 dollar computer program to not do that work
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the benefits of the ITS outweigh the costs (and no, I don't think it really requires more work, honestly, but it can if you want it to.)you know its really weird to tell people that something isn't more work when you're using a 60 dollar computer program to not do that work
When they first announced the ITS as a requirement, I bristled. Now I have found that they help me keep my math in order.
When I added ITSs to all 8 of my characters I decided to retroactively fill them out, an action that was in no way required. I also decided to put every single purchase on the ITS no matter how little it cost, also not necessary. Getting all of my characters up to date, was a lot of work, no doubt, but it was work I made for myself. I also found several math errors and fixed them.
I feel that the ITS is no more work than using the chronicle. I put the effort into keeping it up to date. I plan my purchases for the next game, and I put a post it note on my chronicle with the total cost for my planned purchases. That way if I buy nothing unplanned in the course of the scenario, it takes two seconds to fill in the chronicle with the line "Purchases = xx gp" and add the gp total to the box on the side. Done.
If I purchase something in the adventure I write it down right away. If someone else is the center of focus I quick add the purchase to my ITS and update my note. A matter of moments, though I might have to look up a cost, but I had to do that to make the purchase during the scenario anyways. I'm not distracted because I choose my time to add to the ITS.
Honestly I don't see this additional work people are talking about. I put the effort in at home before game, just like I would have if I was putting purchases on the previous chronicle.
|
|
I think the benefits of the ITS outweigh the costs (and no, I don't think it really requires more work, honestly, but it can if you want it to.)you know its really weird to tell people that something isn't more work when you're using a 60 dollar computer program to not do that work
it wasn't more work last August when I used the ITS. Only in the past couple of months did I start using the journals in HL to track that info as well.
No, it is not more work for me, whether or not I add that info to HL.
You don't like the ITS, that's fine, but let's not start making this personal or somehow suggest I am being disingenuous, which is what your post aims at. I'd prefer you not do that and just stick to your disagreement.
|
|
You don't like the ITS, that's fine, but let's not start making this personal or somehow suggest I am being disingenuous, which is what your post aims at.
and no, I don't think it really requires more work, honestly, but it can if you want it to.)<--- is shooting those allegations already.
And seriously, you don't get the irony of saying its the same amount of work while evading it yourself? Its like telling someone its not a far walk before vrooming up your motorcycle.
|
|
You don't like the ITS, that's fine, but let's not start making this personal or somehow suggest I am being disingenuous, which is what your post aims at.and no, I don't think it really requires more work, honestly, but it can if you want it to.)<--- is shooting those allegations already.
And seriously, you don't get the irony of saying its the same amount of work while evading it yourself? Its like telling someone its not a far walk before vrooming up your motorcycle.
Well, considering I didn't think it was more work before I started tracking it in HL. And now I track it in both. I don't get how you can't understand the difference.
Aside from using the regular inventory stuff in HL, I used the ITS as required. I didn't think using the ITS then was more work. Now that I add the purchases into my HL journal, I don't think it's any more or less work.
And if I didn't use HL, I would feel the same way. The ITS doesn't require any great amount of time to use, it isn't difficult to use, and it's not some time drag.
|
Contributor
|
You don't like the ITS, that's fine, but let's not start making this personal or somehow suggest I am being disingenuous, which is what your post aims at. I'd prefer you not do that and just stick to your disagreement.
^ This.
Like I said before I (thought I) bowed out of the conversation many posts ago. If the ITS is good for the majority, and there are ways to "customize" it to make it work better for you than the "standard" one, so be it. We'll just have to adapt and move on.
|
|
You don't like the ITS, that's fine, but let's not start making this personal or somehow suggest I am being disingenuous, which is what your post aims at. I'd prefer you not do that and just stick to your disagreement.^ This.
Like I said before I (thought I) bowed out of the conversation many posts ago. If the ITS is good for the majority
Is it? Who is it helping? What is it helping anyone do?
To start with there seems to be a large segment of people who are outright ignoring the thing, and I can't blame them. The chronicle sheets are already enough of an accounting exercise without double entry booking (later chronicles got slightly better by removing a little of the add here total subtract here re-total add here re total...)
If the sheet is working for anyone that's not cheating they can keep using it, no loss there.
If someone's cheating they're just going to fake the ITS anyway.
So in what way shape of form is requiring it making the game for anyone? Its obviously annoying some people.
and there are ways to "customize" it to make it work better for you than the "standard" one, so be it. We'll just have to adapt and move on.
You have to adapt to things that can't be changed. Weather, biology. Systems put in place by humanoids can be changed by humanoids.
|
|
You don't like the ITS, that's fine, but let's not start making this personal or somehow suggest I am being disingenuous, which is what your post aims at.and no, I don't think it really requires more work, honestly, but it can if you want it to.)<--- is shooting those allegations already.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
If you only do the bare minimum that the ITS requires, it's really no more work. If you want to be far more comprehensive, then yes, I suppose it could be more work, depending on how in depth you want it to be. It can be more work if you want it to - basedon how much you have it do for you and how much work you invest in it.
But the basics? No, no more work at all.
|
|
Is it? Who is it helping? What is it helping anyone do?You obviously haven't been reading my posts.
I have been. I do not consider helping you find accounting errors you could have spotted yourself justification for making thousand of other gamers that are not you increase the amount of nitpicky paperwork they have to do for a game.
|
|
I have been. I do not consider helping you find accounting errors you could have spotted yourself justification for making thousand of other gamers that are not you increase the amount of nitpicky paperwork they have to do for a game.Is it? Who is it helping? What is it helping anyone do?You obviously haven't been reading my posts.
When I can take 3 minutes to audit everyone at the table as opposed to 20, yes it's worth it.
But I can understand the point you're making. I think you're wrong, but that's beside the point. The quote I was referring to was at the end of my last post.
I understand if they seem like unnecessary paperwork to other people, and if your region has no problems with accounting, then that's great! However, please don't pretend that every region is the same and that it doesn't solve any problems in any region, because that is blatantly not true.
That is your answer to this question:
Is it? Who is it helping? What is it helping anyone do?
If you feel that the Inventory Tracking Sheet is not worth the effort or hurts more people than it harms, that is your opinion to argue. But please stop pretending it has no upside. That is rather insulting to someone who has used it to help his region.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Read what you just wrote. Your GM asked you about the potion of remove blindness; you showed him where it was on your inventory; the game moved on.If I asked you about it (which I probably wouldn't even do the first time), exactly the same would happen.
It's not doubting your honesty in particular; it's just that I've encountered players who always have exactly the potion they need, and not any of the similar restorative items (such as, in your example, that scroll of remove deafness), just as I've encountered players whose initiative rolls, saving throws, etc., are statistically extremely improbable.
I ask everybody to roll dice openly, and leave them on the table where they can clearly be read. That doesn't mean I suspect everybody of cheating; it just means that...
(Sorry for the delay, couldn't write this out on the phone)
No, read what I wrote. I showed him where it was on my character sheet, not an ITS, not a chronicle sheet, my character sheet. It was a 'really?' 'yes, really' and move on.
The other problem with the ITS is that 25 GP limit. Love it or hate it, it will cause holes. My archerologist shoots an average of two tangleshot arrows a session. At 20 GP they don't need to be tracked. I usually buy 4 at a time. (face it, making them spend an action to get rid of that entangled condition never gets old) So that's 40 GP a session, 60-120 GP a level (depending on slow play) If I never put GM credit on him*, you're talking about easily a 600+ gold difference in audit on one item alone. Let alone the other less than 25 GP alchemical toys that character uses, frequently in a session. and heaven help the alchemist.
As I've said elsewhere, the ITS straddles a line between making it easier for GMs/Players, and punishing everyone to stop potential abuse. I'm of the camp it crosses the line.
*
|
|
The other problem with the ITS is that 25 GP limit. Love it or hate it, it will cause holes. My archerologist shoots an average of two tangleshot arrows a session. At 20 GP they don't need to be tracked. I usually buy 4 at a time.
So that's 80 gold. You don't think you should put that purchase on the tracking sheet? Because individually they don't meet the minimum?
|
I'm noticing the amount of auditing that is required for scenarios is increasing. I ran another Season 5 last night that required one. As I said earlier, if having an ITS does anything, it's helping the GM perform a quick audit.
But I quickly realized that nearly everyone at the table had a different way of using it, and all of them were different from my method.
When I fill out an ITS, one column is for consumables, one for mundane items, one for armor/weapons/ammunition, and one for wondrous/ioun stones/other. I do each column in different ink. I'm one of those people that carries around 8 different pen colors.
One player had like 4 items on his sheet. This was a Tier 5-9 game. All he'd ever done was written the gold spent on his Chronicle sheets, and not the items he bought. Clearly paperwork was not his strong suit.
Another player had an ITS for every Chronicle. I know this game consumers a lot of paper, but to me that really seemed an extra waste.
Another player was unaware he needed an ITS. Half the game he spent filling one out.
Another player used a HeroLab sheet. It didn't list the sheet # it was purchased on or sold, and I wasn't used to the format.
Another player's multiple ITSs were written in pencil, with eraser marks and things crossed out and notes in the margins, in script I could barely read. It worked for him, he said, but I swear I had a nightmare about it.
The last player was neat and orderly, but had put everything in chronological order, with no sorting into categories.
I found out what I needed. I was looking for two things in particular, and we moved on. No characters had one of the things I was looking for, and only 2 had the other (which I thought was weird, as the scenario assumes most, if not all, of the PCs have one).
Of course, when it came time for said item, everyone claimed they had one. When I asked them why it wasn't on their ITS, they said because it was given to them as a boon on a Chronicle sheet, or they just hadn't written it down.
(wow, this turned into a long post)
I'm still sure the audit went faster than if there had not been an ITS, and the item that nobody had was the more important issue anyways, but it sure was a wakeup call to other peoples style of record keeping, and that not everyone is as equally skilled in it.
|
|
I found out what I needed. I was looking for two things in particular, and we moved on. No characters had one of the things I was looking for, and only 2 had the other (which I thought was weird, as the scenario assumes most, if not all, of the PCs have one).Of course, when it came time for said item, everyone claimed they had one. When I asked them why it wasn't on their ITS, they said because it was given to them as a boon on a Chronicle sheet, or they just hadn't written it down.
So, in essence, your audit wasn't done to catch someone cheating, but to ascertain whether or not one or more characters had a specific item or two that could have had direct bearing and influence on the game?
[SARCASM]Would an alternative have been to merely ask if any of the characters had one or both of those items? Surely doing it that way would have been much faster, particularly, you know, since players can just lie and cheat on the ITS, on the off chance they cheated to just record the specific item they would need for that scenario. [/SARCASM]
|
|
Your sarcasm is not applicable in this particular instance.
I've also never audited to catch cheaters. I don't think that's the intention. I only audit if the scenario calls for it.
The point I was attempting to make (inarticulate as it may have been) was that your audit of the ITS wasn't to catch a cheater (some here have mentioned that it CAN be used to catch cheating, though in my experience, that type of cheating is really pretty rare - most cheating I see is on die rolls as the table.)
There are those who have suggested that auditing the ITS doesn't catch many cheaters. I agree with that. But, that point is usually raised to suggest that the cost of doing the audit outweighs any potential benefit.
In your example, since you weren't attempting to catch a cheater, that argument is immaterial (hence my sarcasm.) Rather, you were attempting to determine, in advance of the scenario, whether or not they had particular items that may have been of use or had an effect on the scenario, right?
Could you have gotten that info of the character sheet? Maybe. And the guy who said he got it as a boon on a chronicle sheet? Maybe, but then you or the player would be flipping through chronicle sheets to find the right one.
YOUR audit of the ITS was a much faster, more efficient way to find the information you needed. That was my point.
|
|
YOUR audit of the ITS was a much faster, more efficient way to find the information you needed. That was my point.
And I believe that's the point of the ITS (which I stated in the very first paragraph of the comment you quoted from).
Cheaters will cheat. Audits are not for catching cheaters. I don't even understand how you could. I highly doubt campaign leadership felt the need to inject drama into this game. It's much more believable that the purpose of an audit is to determine if a character has a certain item or has played a certain scenario that is relevant to the one you're running.
I was simply pointing out my experience with this one in particular.
|
|
The other problem with the ITS is that 25 GP limit. Love it or hate it, it will cause holes. My archerologist shoots an average of two tangleshot arrows a session. At 20 GP they don't need to be tracked. I usually buy 4 at a time.So that's 80 gold. You don't think you should put that purchase on the tracking sheet? Because individually they don't meet the minimum?
I would be surprised if we were supposed to add such to an ITS if individually items do not exceed 25GP, but collectively they do. If that was the rule you would get inconsistency, with different results as to what is recorded depending on how many you buy in one go.
When I asked them why it wasn't on their ITS, they said because it was given to them as a boon on a Chronicle sheet, or they just hadn't written it down.
That is interesting - if the item was genuinely not purchased, but was simply provided to the character as a boon, then it is arguable that it shouldn't be included on the ITS.
Isn't it also a bit weird that you are supposed to track consumption of ammo on the ITS, but for regular ammo you don't actually need to record its purchase on the ITS? 20 arrows is only 1gp, even 20 Cold Iron arrows are only 2gp.
|
|
I don't understand the issue with Alchemists. You're not the only one I've heard who complains about this. All of my characters use consumables and alchemical weapons, but I've never had trouble keeping track of stuff.
I keep one line on my ITS for each different type, and usually a "(x#)" next to it. Alchemist Fire (x3), for example.
If I use 1, 2, or 3 during a scenario, I simply write on that Chronicle sheet when I'm done "Replenished Alchemist Fire, X gp".
|
|
I've never crafted alchemical items (never played an Alchemist), but I fail to see why it would be different.
All that changes is the gold price.
Basic economics nefreet. If something is that much cheaper you buy and use more of it. Having an antitoxin drinking contest before every dungeon is a bit pricey for most but easy when you're own supplier.
|
|
Here's an excerpt from an actual ITS I have for my 10th level Inquisitor:
Liquid Ice (x2) 80gp [3] [_]
Antitoxin (x2) 100gp [3] [_]
Potion Enlarge Person (x2) 100gp [4] [11]
Alchemical Grease (x2) 10gp [4] [_]
...and later on...
Potion Enlarge Person (x2) 100gp [13] [_]
I use potions of Enlarge Person a lot for this character. On almost every Chronicle sheet I write "Replenished Potion Enlarge Person 50gp" or "Replenished 2 Potions Enlarge Person 100gp", but on Chronicle #11 I forgot, and didn't realize until I sat down to game #13, so I bought two more.
During the game if I use something that I usually plan to replenish I write a tally mark in pencil next to the item on my ITS, so I know how many I used, and how many I need to replenish. I've used Liquid Ice and Antitoxins quite a bit, but I've never checked the second box on my sheet since I replenish them each game I use them.
For this particular character, since I'm using/buying potions practically every level, I'd burn through ITSs like crazy if I had to cross an item off each time, or worse, have an ITS with 90% of the items crossed off and only a handful of others still there. That eyesore is too much for me.
Same thing for more expensive items, if I replenish them the same game I use them. Potions of Fly are a common example. If I replenish it, no reason to check the second box. If I don't replenish it, I check the box.
(my custom ITS has only two boxes, btw. I saw the 3rd box as redundant)
|
I'm noticing the amount of auditing that is required for scenarios is increasing. I ran another Season 5 last night that required one. As I said earlier, if having an ITS does anything, it's helping the GM perform a quick audit.
There are scenarios that require audits???? That is SERIOUSLY bad news.
I found out what I needed. I was looking for two things in particular, and we moved on. No characters had one of the things I was looking for, and only 2 had the other (which I thought was weird, as the scenario assumes most, if not all, of the PCs have one).
Of course, when it came time for said item, everyone claimed they had one. When I asked them why it wasn't on their ITS, they said because it was given to them as a boon on a Chronicle sheet, or they just hadn't written it down.
I admit that my bookkeeping is sometimes imperfect. The one thing that is guaranteed to be up to date is my herolab character sheet. If you want to know what my character is carrying that is where to look.
Note that most of my characters predate the ITS so you can NOT expect the ITS to have everything. And for chronicle sheets I often did things like misc: 200 to cover potions, scrolls, wrist sheathes, etc etc etc
|
|
I find the existing ITS as useful for tracking my major gear purchases, however it is severely lacking with consumable tracking. Half of my sheet is taken up by onyx, diamond dust, and diamond material components. It's not really practical. It becomes cluttered to the point where it's honestly difficult for me to figure out what I still have left. Though, admittedly, this may be because I will write something like "onyx x25" for bulk purchases.
That being said, I see value in having an inventory tracking sheet. I think the process could be improved to be a little less tedious and more useful.
|
|
There are scenarios that require audits???? That is SERIOUSLY bad news.
I don't think he meant that scenario itself literally requires an audit. Rather, I took his post to mean that, in the scenario, there may be certain items that could impact the scenario if the players have them, and the audit before starting the game gives the GM an idea of whether or not those items may come into play.
So, I didn't see his comment of a "requirement" to literally mean that.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's been a while since the ITS was rolled out, and I think I've finally come to an understanding about them.
I don't use hero lab for PFS. I have it, it's a great program, but I don't use it. I like the old pencil and paper approach to tracking my gear. Before the ITS, I tracked all my purchases was on a separate sheet of paper. It had my gold/prestige total and all the purchases I'd made. I did this so I could have an idea of where my money was going and plan out where I wanted it to go in the future. The same sheet also tracked my consumables—ammunition, wand charges, spell components, etc. Whenever I played a game, the sheet came out and I used it side by side my character sheet as needed. Effectively, I already had an ITS.
Making it a requirement hasn't really impacted me at all. Since you're allowed to have a custom sheet and GMs don't need to sign off on it, nothing has changed for me at all. So personally, I don't have any problems with it. I honestly think that everyone should have a list of all their gear and how much it cost. It makes everyone's lives easier, as lots of other posters have brought up.
But the one thing I don't like about the ITS being required in the guide is that it forces people to complete a process that, as far as I'm concerned, should be common sense. Why wouldn't you want to know what your character has on one handy sheet of paper? Of course you would. It's great to have on hand. What it ends up being is the fact that "the man" telling people what to do. And if I hadn't been using my own form of tracking sheet already, I'd be irate that I'd have to start now. Sorry, but I'm a stubborn guy like that, and I know other folks that are as well.
For example, where I live it's illegal to drive without your seat belt. You can get a big ticket for doing so. Before there was a law enforcing the wearing of seat belts, I wore seat belts all the time. It made sense—why wouldn't you protect your life? But after I was required by law to wear one? I hardly wear seat belts in town anymore. I just put them over my shoulder as a personal "screw you" to the powers that be. I think it's a dumb law, and in my mind I'm winning a personal battle of moral high ground by not following "their rules." I know it's stupid, I know it's foolish, but there's smug satisfaction in not compromising whatever code you follow. In reality, all I'm doing is setting myself up for a nasty car accident, and the resulting injuries I sustain will be entirely my fault for not wearing a seat belt.
So what do I think about the ITS? I think everyone should track their purchases on a single sheet for quick reference—it's a great way to speed up audits, make sure purchases balance out, and confirm you have gear. I think that telling folks how to do it is going to lead to a lot of people breaking the rules, as is evidenced by the vitriol of this thread. In the end, the sad thing is that people without a tracking sheet of their inventory are only hurting themselves.
They're the ones that might get turned away from a table or chewed out by a GM or forum goer. So to those people rejecting the ITS I offer this post as my nod of understanding—from one same soul to another. Just use the a custom sheet and track all your purchases. You'll be happier that you did and you won't spend all your time railing against a ruling that, if more people exercised common sense, wouldn't need to exist in the first place. If you don't you might wind up like me, cutting off my nose to spite my face.
|
|
With regard to alchemists and other consumables users My first idea was to use a missile tracking sheet crossing out a top row when I bought an item and then crossing off the bottom row when I used it.
Currently I stick to buying in groups of six and keeping a tally of the used ones in the expeneded box using 5 vertical lines and using the horizontal tally mark for when the sixth is used
However I am in the camp if you are going to record stuff on the ITS record everything inc Boons and all prestige expenses
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the difference between ITS and generic tracking:
I need to know how many potions of enlarge person that i have in my handy haversack.
What I don't need to know is when I bought the potion, and when I've ever used any of the potions. I don't need to keep track of that wand of CLW that heaved its last poor breath 2 scenarios ago. It doesn't need to be in my brain, it doesn't need to be on my sheet.
|
|
how do you mark it if you only use one?
During the game if I use something that I usually plan to replenish I write a tally mark in pencil next to the item on my ITS, so I know how many I used, and how many I need to replenish.
Some people use check boxes, I use tallies.
The result is the same.
This really isn't rocket science.
|
|
I need to know how many potions of enlarge person that i have in my handy haversack.
What I don't need to know is when I bought the potion, and when I've ever used any of the potions. I don't need to keep track of that wand of CLW that heaved its last poor breathe 2 scenarios ago. It doesn't need to be in my brain, it doesn't need to be on my sheet.
I'm not a man of faith, but Amen.
I see absolutely no reason to have an ITS filled with crossed out materials purchased one at a time.
|
|
When I played my most recent Alchemist (1st level) I listed crafting 6 alchemist fires and 6 Alkili flasks on the same two lines, but I did this because I knew I would be using all 12 items at once
I'd also like to point out that you aren't required to write down any of them, since they're valued under 25gp. Whatever system you devise is your own machination.
It sounds like this process is stressing you out, given all your questions, but it really needn't be. Just come up with something that works for you. Thats the definition of a "custom sheet". As long as a judge can look it over real quick during an audit, you're golden.
This isn't Taxfinder, it's Pathfinder.
|
|
@nosig:
What it sounds like his sheet shows, is a few lines in addition to the ones he quoted:
Liquid Ice (x2) 80gp [3] [_]
Antitoxin (x2) 100gp [3] [_]
Potion Enlarge Person (x2) 100gp [4] [11]
Alchemical Grease (x2) 10gp [4] [_]
Replenished 2 Liquid Ice 80gp [4] [4]
Replenished Potion Enlarge Person x1 50 gp [5] [5]
Replenished Potion Enlarge Person x2 100 gp [6] [6]
Replenished Potion Enlarge Person x1 50 gp [7] [7]
.
.
.
Potion Enlarge Person (x2) 100gp [13] [_]