|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A guy really likes his fighter to fly. Now that it cost him 150 gp he does it at least once every adventure. I don't feel it was really necessary for him to be able to fly, maybe the combat ends 1 round earlier. But if I don't pay him 150 gp to 'reimburse' him I am accused of not being a 'team player'.
With consumables effectively 75% off I can see some folks using them left and right as long as they are being subsidized by others.
I think that it only applies on consumables you use on others or that benefit the entire group. So your Fighter giving away their potion of Fly to someone else, and there is no promise that anyone else will pay you back, just that they can if they choose.
For example, the Fighter and another character fall down a pit, and the other character is dropped to 0HP exactly. Neither of them have any sort of healing, and the Fighter, for whatever reason can not carry the other character up. So, instead of having the other character climb 1ft and then drop to -1 HP, they pour a Potion of Fly down their throat and the DM allows a slow flight up the pit without loosing HP. Fighter then starts to climb up and the other character gets hit with the Cleric's channel and continue the fight along with the Fighter right afterwards. The other character, afterwards, says, hey that was really cool of you, and if we wouldn't have made it back up here like that, it would have lead to a TPK for sure. Let me buy you a potion of Fly, because you didn't have to do that.
Currently, that is not allowed. The Fighter just used their potion that they bought on another character. The proposed idea would be to allow either the other character to replace (or contribute to replacing) that single Potion of Fly (and nothing else), or everyone in the party the possibility to contribute to replacing that Potion, (and nothing else).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A guy really likes his fighter to fly. Now that it cost him 150 gp he does it at least once every adventure. I don't feel it was really necessary for him to be able to fly, maybe the combat ends 1 round earlier. But if I don't pay him 150 gp to 'reimburse' him I am accused of not being a 'team player'.
With consumables effectively 75% off I can see some folks using them left and right as long as they are being subsidized by others.
If someone claimed I wasn't a team player for not paying for a potion they bought and drank to fly, I couldn't care less what that person thought of me; he is clearly a dumbass.
This thread is about being able to give back the equivalent things that people give to you in a scenario.
|
|
The box would be checked by the GM, per normal for using a an expendable boon (EX: the Kayle's Blessing Boon from the Chronicle Sheet for First Steps III: A Vision of Betrayal). It would be activated by the player with the boon, and then other players could contribute as they wish. The player activating the boon would advise which item(s) are being reimbursed and other players can opt in our out and their chosen amount. It would be an entirely OOP process and entirely voluntary (much like choosing to pool resources to raise a dead PC).
Good question on the Pregens. They aren't excluded from selling loot to help raise a dead party member, so I'm somewhat conflicted on this. I would say that they can contribute no more than anyone else, but I admit it's only a first thought.
-TimD
|
I'm puzzled why there should be such a restriction, but I'll play Devil's Advocate, and try to see it from the Campaign Staff's point of view.
I'm fairly sure the intent of any restriction is to prevent
a) the accumulation of IOUs between characters, in between scenarios, and
b) players setting up a side-line in the usury business.
Such contracts (verbal or written) would be impossible to enforce, and GMs and VCs should not be expected to adjudicate disputes between players, if one is accused of reneging on their promise.
There's also a question of verisimilitude; if PC A gave PC B funds, while both PCs were travelling together, it should be sorted before they go their separate ways.
PCs A and B may never be seated at the same table again, or it may be some time before these characters find their way to the same lodge, on the same day, and get paired up.
Player A can hardly walk over to a different table, loom over Player B, and ask for his money back, if PC A has last been seen in Katapesh, and PC B is finishing a job in Irrisen.
|
|
A guy really likes his fighter to fly. Now that it cost him 150 gp he does it at least once every adventure. I don't feel it was really necessary for him to be able to fly, maybe the combat ends 1 round earlier. But if I don't pay him 150 gp to 'reimburse' him I am accused of not being a 'team player'.
With consumables effectively 75% off I can see some folks using them left and right as long as they are being subsidized by others.
If someone claimed I wasn't a team player for not paying for a potion they bought and drank to fly, I couldn't care less what that person thought of me; he is clearly a dumbass.
This thread is about being able to give back the equivalent things that people give to you in a scenario.
It may have devolved towards something like this, but in the OP replacing potions of fly used in a scenario by the group is specific mentioned in his list of consumables...
The thread was about group purchasing of consumables used during a scenario, not one person replacing consumables used on them.
The other character, afterwards, says, hey that was really cool of you, and if we wouldn't have made it back up here like that, it would have lead to a TPK for sure. Let me buy you a potion of Fly, because you didn't have to do that.
Currently, that is not allowed. The Fighter just used their potion that they bought on another character. The proposed idea would be to allow either the other character to replace (or contribute to replacing) that single Potion of Fly (and nothing else), or everyone in the party the possibility to contribute to replacing that Potion, (and nothing else).
I actually think this is pretty much answered by Mark below, basically the guide says you can lend an item, so Fighter lends a potion of fly to another player, the player doesn't buy the Fighter anything, they instead buy themself a Fly-Potion so they are able to return the "borrowed" one they owe the fighter.
page 22 of the guideYou may, however, allow another player to borrow an item for
the duration of a scenario.As I said last time this topic came up, when I let a friend borrow $5 from me, I expect $5 back (not the same 5 dollar bill, but $5). Until a ruling otherwise, I see no reason why this sentence of the Guide does not allow for the return of the borrowed and expended item at the end of the scenario, paying the money but replacing the original item, not giving money to the player who expended it. This is commonly used for breath of life scrolls, with the payout made by either the party together or the person who died depending on how the death happened.
|
|
The other character, afterwards, says, hey that was really cool of you, and if we wouldn't have made it back up here like that, it would have lead to a TPK for sure. Let me buy you a potion of Fly, because you didn't have to do that.
Currently, that is not allowed. The Fighter just used their potion that they bought on another character. The proposed idea would be to allow either the other character to replace (or contribute to replacing) that single Potion of Fly (and nothing else), or everyone in the party the possibility to contribute to replacing that Potion, (and nothing else).
I actually think this is pretty much answered by Mark below, basically the guide says you can lend an item, so Fighter lends a potion of fly to another player, the player doesn't buy the Fighter anything, they instead buy themself a Fly-Potion so they are able to return the "borrowed" one they owe the fighter.
I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I was replying to the below post, which was suggesting that if the proposed idea was allowed, some people would use it to buy themselves concumables, use them on themselves (claiming that it benefitted everyone), and expect the party compensate them, essentially buying themselves stuff (like a potion of Fly) for cheap.
A guy really likes his fighter to fly. Now that it cost him 150 gp he does it at least once every adventure. I don't feel it was really necessary for him to be able to fly, maybe the combat ends 1 round earlier. But if I don't pay him 150 gp to 'reimburse' him I am accused of not being a 'team player'.
With consumables effectively 75% off I can see some folks using them left and right as long as they are being subsidized by others.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no interest in this becoming a rule. It's seems highly likely to cause conflicts, and could promote more "I will end everything with a single spell" type characters if they invest all their wealth in a library of scrolls, and then expect reimbursement for their use.
|
|
The Scroll of BoL and the Potion of Fly have become mandatory for survival now.Mandatory is a very strong word, and I don't agree.
I can think of only one or two games (all eyes of the ten) I have played in where breath of life was cast - so mandatory is way too strong a word - and there are plenty of people who can use scrolls of fly or fly themselves to make potions of fly mandatory (besides just let the archers or gunfighter-inquisitors kill it - :) )
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
With all due respect, earned as I think you've brought a lot of fantastic ideas to the forum, I must disagree. Is it being a team player to not purchase these items and let everybody else bear the burden? Is it being a team player to assume that, since you can't use a particular item, it is the duty of another player to purchase it and use it on you? I'd argue that's far more miserly.I am actually not in favor of this.
We don't need more rules that make it easier to be miserly instead of a team player.
Its a team player to act selflessly.
Expecting recompense is not being a team player.
This is a true statement. But expecting others to be selfless on your behalf without compensation is also not being a team player.
However, I do agree that this may cause more work than it is worth, mainly in the form of record keeping, since you now have potentially 7 people marking gold off their sheets rather than 1 person marking an item off.
|
I agree with Majuba and Carlos up there on their respective points, for what it's worth. Especially concerning scrolls, the only time I have purchased consumeables that I couldn't use were in preparation for Waking Rune and for Bonekeep. Otherwise, given the fluid nature of parties in PFS I would much rather have something that will directly contribute to my survival rather than waste money on something my party might not even be able to use.
.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, Netopalis: thanks for making a well-reasoned proposal to try and improve PFS! Folks who want to see changes made: this is how you do it.
To the proposal: I see a couple of issues with the way it is worded. Please note, I bring the Lamplighter perspective to this, so I tend to have (and prefer) well-prepared characters, so that may bias my feelings somewhat.
First, "consumable" is too broad a term. Are arrows consumables? Scrolls of haste? +2 bane adamantine alchemical paper cartridges? There would need to be a way to deal with defining consumables to avoid just reducing the cost of being a certain class because it depends on consumables. Perhaps restricting it to healing items and removal of permanent conditions (including death)?
Second: while I would love to be able to compensate someone for using a scroll of breath of life on me, I fervently do NOT want to see poor preparation be glossed over because one guy in the party has his act together. Pathfinders are supposed to be prepared, resourceful, versatile. If you are a Pathfinder, you should have essentials with you in advance, and not be able to have your friends pay for them after the fact so you can concentrate all of your gold into your +4 death axe of destruction.
I think the proposal might address the root issue somewhat, but will have the unintended side effects of enabling poor planning on the part of players, and rewarding those who bully or whine for others at their table to pay their bills. I also think it has potential for wealth transfer and abuse, both accidental and intentional. Addressing this issue is better done by player training, mentoring, and experience rather than a safety net that enables characters to thrive just by hanging out with the right person.
|
This is a really good point I had not thought of.
page 22 of the guideYou may, however, allow another player to borrow an item for
the duration of a scenario.As I said last time this topic came up, when I let a friend borrow $5 from me, I expect $5 back (not the same 5 dollar bill, but $5). Until a ruling otherwise, I see no reason why this sentence of the Guide does not allow for the return of the borrowed and expended item at the end of the scenario, paying the money but replacing the original item, not giving money to the player who expended it. This is commonly used for breath of life scrolls, with the payout made by either the party together or the person who died depending on how the death happened.
This is standard practice in the Boston area--we actually have a very high level of teamwork and supportive characters and players, which is something I love about our region.
I had also not considered this method. I'm not sure if most GM's would allow or not.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... we do allow players to contribute to other players' raise dead on a Chronicle... what if that list was expanded slightly, to allow the party to voluntarily contribute to other similar things such as the use of a consumable like a scroll of remove curse, breath of life, etc? Would at least cover the big healing ones, which seems to be the ones that are of real concern. I still don't think we should encourage people to not have their own resources for things like lighting, movement, flying, etc. but healing and condition removal is (perhaps) a different thing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Scroll of BoL and the Potion of Fly have become mandatory for survival now.Mandatory is a very strong word, and I don't agree.
Agreed. None of my characters carry breath of life scrolls and only a few have potions of Fly.
Also, I dont support this change, as it will just enlongate and further complicate the process of getting the chronicle to the player.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Hmm... we do allow players to contribute to other players' raise dead on a Chronicle... what if that list was expanded slightly, to allow the party to voluntarily contribute to other similar things such as the use of a consumable like a scroll of remove curse, breath of life, etc? Would at least cover the big healing ones, which seems to be the ones that are of real concern. I still don't think we should encourage people to not have their own resources for things like lighting, movement, flying, etc. but healing and condition removal is (perhaps) a different thing.
Maybe it could be restricted to consumable items that were used on another player?
That, and oils of daylight. I hate when deeper darkness drops, and all the well-prepared players end up in a game of "oil of daylight Chicken"
|
|
I agree with whomever pointed out that this is far more a problem with the prevalence of deeper darkness in PFS. I generally won't schedule scenarios that I know to use it. Not. Fun.
First, Netopalis: thanks for making a well-reasoned proposal to try and improve PFS! Folks who want to see changes made: this is how you do it.
Completely agree with this - great job Netopalis.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to confess, at times I have not admitted that I had an item that would have made things easier because I didn't want to spend the money to replace my stock.
There are a couple of players at my local that refuse to ever buy a consumable "Because they aren't necessary" yet they seem to really need one or two almost every session. I got tired of spending my money to use remove disease, remove paralysis, neutralize poison, restoration, etc... on them. Then listen to them crow about their mondo blade of uberness.
Now when they are at the table, I tend to just say, "I forgot to replenish from the last time you needed it. Maybe you should buy one before the next scenario." Then I get to them listen about not getting any support.
When I say it, it certainly sounds petty. But I don't think I am likely to change until I see some evidence that those guys will buy something on their own.
Not sure if I like the proposed rule or not. It would allow me to be reimbursed for the cost. But it seems like it would encourage even more players to not buy anything because they can assume someone like me will have it.
|
|
Agreed. None of my characters carry breath of life scrolls and only a few have potions of Fly.The Scroll of BoL and the Potion of Fly have become mandatory for survival now.Mandatory is a very strong word, and I don't agree.
Same. I have seen one scroll of BoL used. The other times it was cast used First Aid Gloves, Channeled Revival, or just spell slots.
Potions of Fly are handy to have but not essential.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I dont support this change, as it will just enlongate and further complicate the process of getting the chronicle to the player.
+1
PFS is about getting experience with people who have different play styles. Sometimes you'll play with people who buy a lot of consumables and use them liberally to help the party and sometimes the players will be selfish and do their own thing and expect others to do theirs.
Just because you use a buy a consumable, doesn't mean you have to use it on anyone other than your own character.
|
|
Having a restriction on temporary lending and buying for others, does mean the party can never split up and cover multiple ground.
Instead of making a shopping list, having one PC buy it, while the others do other relevant preparations elsewhere, we have to hobble around as if we're joined at the ankles, in some bizarre 7-legged race.
If we have to negotiate with the temple of Sarenrae, do I really want the Superstitious barbarian, Razmiran priest, militant Rahadoumite, and Asmodean Cardinal Fang tagging along, hindering me with a -20 Diplomacy modifier?
I'll send them on an errand where they can do the least damage.
|
|
I should probably add more detail to my responses.
I feel that when *I* play tier 5 and onwards, if I don't have a means to BoL or a means to Fly, I am walking into a mission ill-prepared and I deserve everything that happens next.
Also, having played a cleric up to level 9 and having used BoL to save the life of two Pathfinders, which then devolved into a sort of silently accusatory passive aggressive situation where I had to ask for for reimbursement was not fun. I think most cleric/oracle players would really support this change.
EDIT: It may be difficult to word, but could the consumables be reworded to remove any offensive items that either deals hitpoint damage or bestow a negative condition?
|
|
It's funny to see what a chaotic issue this is for everyone. Mixed opinions everywhere. Especially that there's already table variance where this happens, even to the point of skirting an existing rule.
I think the important point to note that they're using that loophole to make for a better game.
I've always played by the rule that you just can't replace consumables other players have because that's the rule, and in my experience, nobody likes it. It's one of the rules people hate about playing PFS, and it's turned some people off even starting PFS. You might say "well PFS isn't for everybody", but is that fair? There's evidence here that this can be managed to everybody's satisfaction.
Maybe what we want is to allow the rule, but to make sure it's very carefully worded, or has "commonsense wording" like the don't be a jerk rule that everyone just understands.
|
|
Well, funny thing about breath of life is that the person that uses it isn't usually the one that buys it. Either you buy it and hand it to the cleric and you MIGHT be the one that drops dead, or the cleric buys it for the first person to drop dead. Either way, someone is out a pretty significant chunk of change for someone elses benefit.
The cleric also needs to hold the scroll in his hand to use it at some tables because it can only be used at touch range: so unless you die ON the cleric he has to move and then cast.
I suppose if EVERYONE brought a breath of life scroll you could schrodingers cat who's scroll the cleric was holding to be the one who used it.
Or just have everyone paste one onto the backs of their cloaks of resistance.
|
|
Well, funny thing about breath of life is that the person that uses it isn't usually the one that buys it. Either you buy it and hand it to the cleric and you MIGHT be the one that drops dead, or the cleric buys it for the first person to drop dead. Either way, someone is out a pretty significant chunk of change for someone elses benefit.
The cleric also needs to hold the scroll in his hand to use it at some tables because it can only be used at touch range: so unless you die ON the cleric he has to move and then cast.
I suppose if EVERYONE brought a breath of life scroll you could schrodingers cat who's scroll the cleric was holding to be the one who used it.
Or just have everyone paste one onto the backs of their cloaks of resistance.
Schrodinger's cat where we convinced everyone to buy the scroll was exactly the SOP up here in the version of the Guide before the borrow line existed. As I discovered at Cons, however, that doesn't work as well with people when it isn't SOP. At a Con with my lower than level 9 Cleric, at most tables people thought the scroll was a good idea, but at one table (out of a few dozen), some of the players thought I was basically extorting them because they assumed the cleric should have to pay 1125 gold if they got themselves killed, and they were mad for the rest of the game. It was particularly jarring and uncomfortable for me, since I'm used to having other players enjoy playing with me at the table. While if they had died, the same thing would have come up with the borrowing rule, they didn't die (no ally has actually ever died at a table with my cleric around...yet), so the situation would have been avoided simply by not needing to mention it at the beginning.
|
|
I have one Seeker and am close to having two others and I don't think I can think of a scenario in which Fly is required.The Scroll of BoL and the Potion of Fly have become mandatory for survival now.Mandatory is a very strong word, and I don't agree.
Required, no. Useful, yes. Plus, its all about party makeup. We have several higher level archers and gunslingers who help make flight less necessary.
BTW, I dont think I knew you hit 2 stars. Have I given you a 2-star sheet yet?
|
|
I should probably add more detail to my responses.
I feel that when *I* play tier 5 and onwards, if I don't have a means to BoL or a means to Fly, I am walking into a mission ill-prepared and I deserve everything that happens next.
Also, having played a cleric up to level 9 and having used BoL to save the life of two Pathfinders, which then devolved into a sort of silently accusatory passive aggressive situation where I had to ask for for reimbursement was not fun. I think most cleric/oracle players would really support this change.
EDIT: It may be difficult to word, but could the consumables be reworded to remove any offensive items that either deals hitpoint damage or bestow a negative condition?
I have not as yet purchased a scroll of BoL.
However by around 5th level, I feel all my characters should have some way to get up in the air. Spell, magic item, shape change, po of fly (or at least levitate), etc...
have I always needed it? No, of course not. But it has made several scenarios much easier to be clearly worth the price.
How about at the beginning of a senario the group decides which consumables they want to take along with them and puts down a "deposit". By the end of the senario if you have not used it, then you get your deposit back. Make it so they only accept unused items, so partially charged wands will not be accepted. This allows the group to all share equally in the cost of consumables, and makes the entire transaction take place in the same session. This might help take the strain of certain high cost consumables off of certain classes like clerics by letting the whole group chip in for them. This also prevents any wealth transfer amoung PCs.
Gotta be a no for me. I for one think that you seriously undercut the danger of a scenario if you basically tell players: "Hey you have a few thousand gold you are saving for that magic item, how about you buy something for every eventuallity, oh dont worry anything you dont need you dont pay for so you still get to save all your money"
You really remove the risk of scenarios, and while that is normally doable, its only doable if you are willing to be prepared, and to spend the gold.
|
|
How about at the beginning of a senario the group decides which consumables they want to take along with them and puts down a "deposit". By the end of the senario if you have not used it, then you get your deposit back. Make it so they only accept unused items, so partially charged wands will not be accepted. This allows the group to all share equally in the cost of consumables, and makes the entire transaction take place in the same session. This might help take the strain of certain high cost consumables off of certain classes like clerics by letting the whole group chip in for them. This also prevents any wealth transfer amoung PCs.Gotta be a no for me. I for one think that you seriously undercut the danger of a scenario if you basically tell players: "Hey you have a few thousand gold you are saving for that magic item, how about you buy something for every eventuallity, oh dont worry anything you dont need you dont pay for so you still get to save all your money"
You really remove the risk of scenarios, and while that is normally doable, its only doable if you are willing to be prepared, and to spend the gold.
+1.
I really dont like this idea. On top of what he said above, it is yet another thing that will take up additional time at the table.
+1.
I really dont like this idea. On top of what he said above, it is yet another thing that will take up additional time at the table.
Damn it Seth, HE has a name! ;)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the part of this that everyone who is complaining about is overlooking is that its completely voluntary, or at least should be.
Player A voluntarily buys the item.
Player B needs the item or will die.
Player A decides the death of Player B is not conducive to a good game, so voluntarily uses the item he bought.
Player B decides he's super thankful to Player A so voluntarily pays to buy Player A a replacement for the item used to save his life.
There should be no "you have the item so you have to use it" or "I used this item on you so you have to pay me back" or any variations on these statements. That should fall under the "Don't be a jerk" rule. Player A doesn't have to use the item. This is just like it is now. Only with the rule change Player B would have the option to pay back a kindness done to him if he doesn't want to be a freeloader.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not where the problem is. The problem is when players use the proosed rule to pair up and have 1 PC's gold pay for everything a second PC needs, so that the second PC can spend their gold on being a combat monster.
Really, the best solution is for characters to be prepared on their own, with their own consumables, just like we already do with healing wands. Yes, it means you have to spend money in anticipation, rather than just keeping some gold in reserve and being able to count on others to provide whatever you might need that day. That way wealth transfer can't be abused, and players need to be prepared.
|
|
I think the part of this that everyone who is complaining about is overlooking is that its completely voluntary, or at least should be.
Player A voluntarily buys the item.
Player B needs the item or will die.
Player A decides the death of Player B is not conducive to a good game, so voluntarily uses the item he bought.
Player B decides he's super thankful to Player A so voluntarily pays to buy Player A a replacement for the item used to save his life.There should be no "you have the item so you have to use it" or "I used this item on you so you have to pay me back" or any variations on these statements. That should fall under the "Don't be a jerk" rule. Player A doesn't have to use the item. This is just like it is now. Only with the rule change Player B would have the option to pay back a kindness done to him if he doesn't want to be a freeloader.
I think the issue is that it should be voluntary, yes, but will probably lead to players feeling the must voluntarily repay debts. Either because they as a player don't like feeling like they owe, or again as a player feel they are being guilt tripped into it or else they are the one being jerks. Read any of the Cleric 0f ______/Paladin/Good vs Necromancer-but-I'm-not-Evil-on-my-character-sheet forums on just how many ways "don't be a jerk" can be viewed. :)