New Rule Proposal: Consumable Reimbursement


Pathfinder Society

201 to 250 of 396 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

N N 959 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If your job regularly involves being hacked to pieces,
If the prevailing attitude is you shouldn't be putting people in a box, then it's nobody's "job" to get hacked to pieces. If the paladin wants to fight at ranged after taking some damage, that's her prerogative.

Your job is adventuring. You will be hacked to pieces. Pack accordingly.

If your job while adventuring is to stand next to things that like to hack you to pieces, plan accordingly.

Shadow Lodge

As someone who occasionally plays a face, it is my job to keep us out of combat if at all possible. If the BSF decides "all talk and no choppy make Thunk something something" then I'm not able to do my job. I shouldn't have to heal Thunk for "protecting" me in the fight I could have talked my way out of.

As someone who occasionally plays a Thunk, it is my job to kill things before they can kill me back. Part of killing things is taking damage. As long as the other guy loses all his hit points before I do, I win. If you don't want to help heal me after (or during) the fight, then you better also have a way to kill things before they kill you in case I go down.

The problem is, one of my Thunk characters is a cleric. So, theoretically I could heal myself (and often do). But if you're playing a Thunk, and I'm playing a Thunk, it's not fair for you to expect me to do your healing while you get to have all the fun. If you want to go to the back and pout about how I won't heal you, that's fine. More choppy for me. :)

I guess what I'm saying is, there are roles in Pathfinder. Not every party will have every possible role. It is not fair to say "You're playing a [CLASS], that makes you the Healer." You need to be able to live through a scenario where the best Healer you have is a Rogue with UMD and no wand (because why should he have a wand? He's the Scout/Striker, not the Healer). We all have things we'd like to be doing, but instead Dradle Dreg woke us up at 3:AM to be the next stars on 1000 Ways to Die. The idea is we come together as a group to face those challenges, that way when we die anyway we know we did the best we could. This rambling post brought to you by the makers of Nyquil.

EDIT: Oh, yeah! The whole reason I posted: You should totally be able to make an oil of glitterdust. It says "creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread" so it clearly targets the creatures and the objects, not just the area itself. You should be able to make oils of sleep and glitterdust because they specify creatures, but not color spray and fireball, because those only specify an area.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Andreas Forster wrote:

yep, that's some very unpleasant attitude. And IMO, it's as silly as expecting every player to spend prestige on a Wand of CLW.

What I expect from a healer is to use his class abilities to heal the party as is necessary

Something you need to understand about healing: it will not keep up with the damage you take. Unless you are specced as a life oracle or channelbot mere class abilities will not be sufficient to keep up with the damage you take. Over the editions, healing has gone almost nowhere, while damage capacity has gone through the roof. Anyone else is going to have to spend the entire four hours doing NOTHING but give you heal spells... which will probably be less efficient AND less fun than throwing down silences and confusions, and will in all likelyhood still need to burn their WBL to heal you. In regular play the party can chip in for "group loot" so the healer doesn't have to do this, but in society play they're just flushing wand charge after wand charge down the drain of people don't pay for their own healing.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

N N 959 wrote:
Ferious Thune wrote:
N N, the problem with that philosophy is that in PFS, you are not guaranteed to end up at a table with a proper support character, and definitely unlikely to have a dedicated healer.

This is a completely different discussion.

Yes. if I show up at table and no one is any more capable of healing than anyone else, then we have to work out a solution.

Quote:
Not bringing at least some healing for your own character, however, also hurts the party's chance of success.
That's a theory, not a fact. For it to be a fact, you'd have to prove there is no other thing which you could have purchased that could have improved your odds of success. Would you rather the fighter spend her last 300gp on a potion of Align Weapon or Cure Serious Wounds?

Just to answer this, fairly stupid, question:

50 gp for an oil of bless weapon, 100 gp for two potions of cure light wounds, 50 gp for an oil of magic weapon, and 100 gp for incidentals, like having some money available for relevant supplies (potion of endure elements, for example, when going to Irrisen or Osirion, money for bribes or special supplies.

I played one game where, because we had some money available, we were able to bribe a nasty monster with food so we could pass it without a fight.

Now, asking you to spend 2 PP, out of your stock of 30-40, for a wand of CLW? Once is negligible. Twice is getting into the question of why you need so much healing. If you are spending, or would have spent, a significant amount of your PP on wands of CLW, you need to look over your PC and determine why you are taking so much damage, maybe.

Asking someone else, however, to spend their hard-earned PP on healing you, again, is not being a party player. If you use your own resources on your own healing (Ooooo, what a concept! Spending your resources on yourself!), and the amoutn spent seems inordinate to you, that is a wake-up call to look at why it is happening. If you aren't spending your resources, but burning someone else's, you might not notice how much of their resources you are using, and not realize that maybe you need to look at your PC in a more critical light.

Or, to put it another way, would you rather be the recipient of blessing of fervor or cure critical wounds?

The Exchange 5/5

you know what? if I really wanted someone at the table, I can see spending my resources on them... as long as it's my choice and not their expectation.

Scenario I am envisioning...

Troubled Visiting Player: "Hay, how come you guys just hand Jo's Barbarian expensive stuff to use like that? Why do you even invite her to the game?"
Old Hand: "Jo brings the beer and pizza to the game."
T.V.P.: "Oohhh! O.K. Hay Jo, you doing ok for HP?"

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have been reflecting on this thread (and several others on the same track) for a few days now... and I have a couple insites (I think)

If we are NOT expecting to take any damage - and have a few potions just in case something leaks around the edges, are people saying we should have a CLW wand to help heal up the Tank/meat shield (who after all is taking damage that was ment for the party)?

That's a different take on this. Sounds good to me though. I'll need to be sure and share my wand some with the Tank when I've the back rank caster (or the scout or whatever). As my contribution to the "group healing" fund and all. (I would expect him to have one too...)

I've run the front liner who draws fire to suck off the AOOs from the monster. Maxed out AC... and wearing a Hat of Disguise to make my PC look like the back rank wizard to draw fire. Lots of gimmicks. Or sucks off the attacks from the stupid monsters. Or holds the doorway and blocks the monster in the room... or provides cover for the wizard by standing between him and the enemy.

I can see passing over my wand to share some of the expense of patching up whoever the bad guys were shooting at. You know, to spread the expense out in the party. To be more of a team player.

As long as it is SHARED, and not carried by one or even most of the party. If I can't share the "HP Tax" this game? I'll be sure to pick up a little extra next time. We're a team right? And no one likes a Mooch for long. (unless there are other reasons. Like she's cute, or she brought Pizza/donuts/Thia food, something).

And that's what we're getting at right? Spreading the cost of the adventure out between all the PCs... in something like a "fair" split...


Consider it a "Fair Tax" of sorts. :P

The party shares the burden of raising, restoring, healing, etc. This is something I agree with. I do not believe that if someone dies, the healer is the one that has to walk away from the table with 7000gps in wealth loss just like the warrior who took point shouldn't have to suffer the effects that saved the rest of the party. The cost is the party's responsibility.

Real life example; when my mother passed away, her 6 children and families all traveled back to her hometown to pay our respects. One of us lived in town. Others came from as far as Germany. When her estate was divided between us, the executer of the will first tallied up the costs each of us accrued in traveling back home. Those bills ranged from $0 to well over $1000. Once everyone's expenses were Zeroed out, we shared what was left.

This is how I see a Party. Everyone contributes and everyone shares. The healer shouldn't be stuck with footing the bill for the wands and scrolls and the guy sitting on the frontline soaking up all the damage shouldn't be stuck with it either. Everyone covers that.

Scarab Sages 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
Lots of good stuff.

What nosig said is basically the way I see it. I'm happy to chip in on healing, raise deads, etc. I think what always sets people off in these discussions is when someone feels like they shouldn't have to contribute. That could mean that they don't think they should bring a wand of clw, or it could mean they don't think they should ever use their wand of clw on someone else's character. Neither is a good approach. And, thankfully, at the tables I've been at I've much more often run into the problem of everyone trying to convince each other to LET them contribute to healing. "Here, use my wand." "No, that's ok, I have one. " "No really, I insist. " That kind of thing.

The Exchange 5/5

Ferious Thune wrote:
nosig wrote:
Lots of good stuff.
What nosig said is basically the way I see it. I'm happy to chip in on healing, raise deads, etc. I think what always sets people off in these discussions is when someone feels like they shouldn't have to contribute. That could mean that they don't think they should bring a wand of clw, or it could mean they don't think they should ever use their wand of clw on someone else's character. Neither is a good approach. And, thankfully, at the tables I've been at I've much more often run into the problem of everyone trying to convince each other to LET them contribute to healing. "Here, use my wand." "No, that's ok, I have one. " "No really, I insist. " That kind of thing.

yeah, I know what you mean. As a judge I've even had to watch to be sure that the wand charges are only marked off once... not on two different players (the guy being healed marks his wand, the guy using the wand marks his...)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
If your job while adventuring is to stand next to things that like to hack you to pieces, plan accordingly.

Once again, the vocal minority insist I don't have a "job" remember? What I do or how I do it is not defined by my class. So my "job" is never defined. If there is no one to support the tank on the front-lines, then the "tank" isn't obligate to remain there and absorb the damage. A sling is free and stones are cheap.


N N 959 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If your job while adventuring is to stand next to things that like to hack you to pieces, plan accordingly.
Once again, the vocal minority insist I don't have a "job" remember? What I do or how I do it is not defined by my class. So my "job" is never defined. If there is no one to support the tank on the front-lines, then the "tank" isn't obligate to remain there and absorb the damage. A sling is free and stones are cheap.

There is a difference between "my job is not defined by my class" and "I don't have a job".

A Cleric can be built as a healer/support character or a front-line tank. A fighter can be built as a tank or as a ranger damage archer (whatever you call that role).
That doesn't mean you don't need to have a job and be able to perform it well.

The Exchange 5/5

N N 959 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If your job while adventuring is to stand next to things that like to hack you to pieces, plan accordingly.
Once again, the vocal minority insist I don't have a "job" remember? What I do or how I do it is not defined by my class. So my "job" is never defined. If there is no one to support the tank on the front-lines, then the "tank" isn't obligate to remain there and absorb the damage. A sling is free and stones are cheap.

so don't define yourself by your class.

and we shouldn't define anyone that way, right?

a regular adventuring party I know of...

The fighter only leaves the back of the party to open locks or remove traps, otherwise he stays in the back and supports combat with a bow (called "a long composite assult rifle")...

The bard is the front line damage dealer, having no buffs other than self buffs, and the best AC and DPR, and very little in social skills... gotta love a dervish.

The cleric supports the bard in combat, having the 2nd best AC, but also does AOE damage, being a negitive channeling type who attacks with Inflict spells...(so any undead are left to the other PCs as the cleric can't really deal effectively with them).

The Rogue is the party face, having most of the social skills...

and if someone sits down in this group and acts as anti-social as some of the posts on this thread are coming across... they are likely to be ignored the rest of the game...

Scarab Sages 4/5

thejeff wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If your job while adventuring is to stand next to things that like to hack you to pieces, plan accordingly.
Once again, the vocal minority insist I don't have a "job" remember? What I do or how I do it is not defined by my class. So my "job" is never defined. If there is no one to support the tank on the front-lines, then the "tank" isn't obligate to remain there and absorb the damage. A sling is free and stones are cheap.

There is a difference between "my job is not defined by my class" and "I don't have a job".

A Cleric can be built as a healer/support character or a front-line tank. A fighter can be built as a tank or as a ranger damage archer (whatever you call that role).
That doesn't mean you don't need to have a job and be able to perform it well.

I think for me what it boils down to is, no matter what your class, role, or tactics, sooner or later you will take damage*. It's about the surest thing in PFS besides being woken up past midnight by Drandle Dreng. So why not make a minimal investment so that you know when you do take damage, there's healing available? It just doesn't seem like it should be that complicated of an issue.

* There may be some optimized build out there that I don't know about that combines big-AC, the old Crane Wing, Snake Style, Improved Evasion, Improved Uncanny Dodge, DR/-, Energy Resistance, never being surprised, and whatever else. If you've got that build and you never take any damage or so little damage that you aren't worried about being healed, then, sure, forgo the wand, and more power to you.

Scarab Sages 5/5

N N 959 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If your job while adventuring is to stand next to things that like to hack you to pieces, plan accordingly.
Once again, the vocal minority insist I don't have a "job" remember? What I do or how I do it is not defined by my class. So my "job" is never defined. If there is no one to support the tank on the front-lines, then the "tank" isn't obligate to remain there and absorb the damage. A sling is free and stones are cheap.

I'm used to being the front line blocker, so I would expect you to be a good fighter and sit in the back of the party in case something were to attack us back there. If you think you can pull your weight with a sling and stones, I might even burn a couple charges on a wand of magic stone to up your damage output...

but the next time we are putting a table together, you aren't likely to find me at your table. I like to play with people who like to be part of the team...

Scarab Sages 5/5

Ferious Thune wrote:
thejeff wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If your job while adventuring is to stand next to things that like to hack you to pieces, plan accordingly.
Once again, the vocal minority insist I don't have a "job" remember? What I do or how I do it is not defined by my class. So my "job" is never defined. If there is no one to support the tank on the front-lines, then the "tank" isn't obligate to remain there and absorb the damage. A sling is free and stones are cheap.

There is a difference between "my job is not defined by my class" and "I don't have a job".

A Cleric can be built as a healer/support character or a front-line tank. A fighter can be built as a tank or as a ranger damage archer (whatever you call that role).
That doesn't mean you don't need to have a job and be able to perform it well.

I think for me what it boils down to is, no matter what your class, role, or tactics, sooner or later you will take damage*. It's about the surest thing in PFS besides being woken up past midnight by Drandle Dreng. So why not make a minimal investment so that you know when you do take damage, there's healing available? It just doesn't seem like it should be that complicated of an issue.

* There may be some optimized build out there that I don't know about that combines big-AC, the old Crane Wing, Snake Style, Improved Evasion, Improved Uncanny Dodge, DR/-, Energy Resistance, never being surprised, and whatever else. If you've got that build and you never take any damage or so little damage that you aren't worried about being healed, then, sure, forgo the wand, and more power to you.

actually, for a while I didn't take CLW wands - as I am a cleric and have very high AC and SR (Dwarf trait)... and healing from my spells. I was also under the impression that the wand would not go thru my SR (I have sense been corrected on this...). But you know what? I'm a team player, and I decided that I should share the wealth a bit with my teammates. So I got a wand to heal them sometimes...

Now if my teammates don't have a wand, the first game I'll likely heal them. The second game? I'm not likely to be at their table. "Got something we can use to heal you? No?... you know maybe I'll sit this one out."

Which might make it hard if several of us bail from the table... and go sign up elsewhere.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

N N 959 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
If your job while adventuring is to stand next to things that like to hack you to pieces, plan accordingly.
Once again, the vocal minority insist I don't have a "job" remember?

you're an adventurer aren't you? That involves 50 ways to die and 100 on sundays.

There's a vast difference between "You're a druid, where are my healing spells?" and "You're a melee character, you're going to get hurt".


BigNorseWolf wrote:
There's a vast difference between "You're a druid, where are my healing spells?" and "You're a melee character, you're going to get hurt".

Your statement above is the prototypical strawman argument. No where in this thread has the discussion by me been reduced to your argument. In fact, you and others have ignored what I've been saying and continuously tried to argue something that isn't being debated. The problem with this discussion is everyone insists on framing the discussion based on what axe they want to grind.

I don't have a job, so don't tell me my jobs is to stand in melee and get hurt and I won't tell you your job is to heal me.


nosig wrote:

I can see passing over my wand to share some of the expense of patching up whoever the bad guys were shooting at. You know, to spread the expense out in the party. To be more of a team player.

As long as it is SHARED, and not carried by one or even most of the party.

This says it best for me. I dont mind burning my CLW wand on other people, and I very often do. That being said, if you are pass level 1 and dont have a CLW wand then "No" you can figure your own healing out.

Still, I'm torn in this decision. I have been following this thread since it started. At first I was very much a supporter but after hearing the counter arguments i'm not so sure. What I am planing to do on my characters (even my LoH focused Paladin) is buy a scroll of Breath of Life and a Spring Loaded Wrist Sheath to hand to my party support. Instructions will to be "use it on ME if I go down" If others want a spell like that casted on them instead of paying the 16 PP for rez they should do the same.

I think this is a better idea than the toxic environment that can come from people feeling forced into giving money when they might not agree with decision. Or others putting out neg reviews on players that don't agree. Essentially the potential negatives that others described farther up in this thread.

Silver Crusade

N N 959 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There's a vast difference between "You're a druid, where are my healing spells?" and "You're a melee character, you're going to get hurt".

Your statement above is the prototypical strawman argument. No where in this thread has the discussion by me been reduced to your argument. In fact, you and others have ignored what I've been saying and continuously tried to argue something that isn't being debated. The problem with this discussion is everyone insists on framing the discussion based on what axe they want to grind.

I don't have a job, so don't tell me my jobs is to stand in melee and get hurt and I won't tell you your job is to heal me.

I still think that your proposed division of labor is very risky and unnecessary. I've been with too many clerics who just want to negative channel to have any confidence in your assertions.


N N 959 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There's a vast difference between "You're a druid, where are my healing spells?" and "You're a melee character, you're going to get hurt".

Your statement above is the prototypical strawman argument. No where in this thread has the discussion by me been reduced to your argument. In fact, you and others have ignored what I've been saying and continuously tried to argue something that isn't being debated. The problem with this discussion is everyone insists on framing the discussion based on what axe they want to grind.

I don't have a job, so don't tell me my jobs is to stand in melee and get hurt and I won't tell you your job is to heal me.

And there's still a vast difference between "Your class doesn't define your job" and "I don't have a job".

Your job is to contribute to the group effort in some useful way. If you're standing in the back, not soaking damage and not doing more than minimal damage with your sling, then you're not doing that job.


David Bowles wrote:


I still think that your proposed division of labor is very risky and unnecessary. I've been with too many clerics who just want to negative channel to have any confidence in your assertions.

You lost me.


N N 959 wrote:
I don't have a job, so don't tell me my jobs is to stand in melee and get hurt and I won't tell you your job is to heal me.

I don't think he is telling you your job. I took his quote as to be more focused on the "Pack Accordingly".


thejeff wrote:
Your job is to contribute to the group effort in some useful weapon. If you're standing in the back, not soaking damage and not doing more than minimal damage with your sling, then you're not doing that job.

I've teamed with a small army of casters who for whatever reason are reduced to light crossbows while taking -4 to -8 trying to contributed. Just because I'm playing a Dwarven Paladin in full play doesn't require me to exceed that bar.

I don't have a job, so stop telling me how to play my character.

Silver Crusade

N N 959 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:


I still think that your proposed division of labor is very risky and unnecessary. I've been with too many clerics who just want to negative channel to have any confidence in your assertions.
You lost me.

I just think it's a good idea to have your own CLW wand as any melee type. Just in case the group doesn't have sufficient healing resources.


David Bowles wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:


I still think that your proposed division of labor is very risky and unnecessary. I've been with too many clerics who just want to negative channel to have any confidence in your assertions.
You lost me.
I just think it's a good idea to have your own CLW wand as any melee type. Just in case the group doesn't have sufficient healing resources.

There is no such thing as a melee type. My type is whatever I choose it to be. I don't have job so I don't have to stand in melee any more than you do. My build/class is irrelevant.

Silver Crusade

Ummm, yeah. Okay. So anyway, I still think melee types should have their own CLW wands. Because *I* think there are indeed melee types. I guess we can agree to disagree. Which leads me back to not liking your proposed overspecialization.

If the PCs don't choose who is melee, the NPCs will. And sometimes even then it doesn't work.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
There's a vast difference between "You're a druid, where are my healing spells?" and "You're a melee character, you're going to get hurt".

Your statement above is the prototypical strawman argument. No where in this thread has the discussion by me been reduced to your argument. In fact, you and others have ignored what I've been saying and continuously tried to argue something that isn't being debated. The problem with this discussion is everyone insists on framing the discussion based on what axe they want to grind.

I don't have a job, so don't tell me my jobs is to stand in melee and get hurt and I won't tell you your job is to heal me.

I have no idea what your point is, and neither does anyone else apparently.


David Bowles wrote:
Because *I* think there are indeed melee types.

So you believe there are roles to be filled? The game wouldn't have a "melee" type unless that was function/aspect of the game, would it?

Silver Crusade

I believe that some PCs function better when in melee combat with NPCs as compared with attempting ranged combat. That's what saying. Any PC to me whose combat effectiveness is maximized in melee is a "melee type".


David Bowles commented Edited wrote:
I just think it's a good idea to have your own CLW wand. Just in case the group doesn't have sufficient healing resources.

N N 959, this is what he meant to say. Do you have a problem with the statement now?


BigNorseWolf wrote:


I have no idea what your point is, and neither does anyone else apparently.

I'm using your self-contradictory logic against you. On one hand you want to assert you have no job and then in the same breath you want to tell my what mine is and how I need to play it.


N N 959 wrote:
I'm using your self-contradictory logic against you. On one hand you want to assert you have no job and then in the same breath you want to tell my what mine is and how I need to play it.

You are having a different argument than everyone else. We are talking about expanding consumables and resources. You are using consumables to get your point across about "jobs" and "types".


Slacker2010 wrote:
David Bowles commented Edited wrote:
I just think it's a good idea to have your own CLW wand. Just in case the group doesn't have sufficient healing resources.
N N 959, this is what he meant to say. Do you have a problem with the statement now?

I'm not here to debate someone's opinion on how to play the game. If David thinks it's a good idea to run around naked or for everyone to run around with tower shield proficiency, so be it.

Silver Crusade

But the thread is about opinions on how to play the game. I myself just accept that some scenarios are going to be way more expensive to get through than others. Yeah, a positive channeling cleric saves everyone a lot of $$, but those are pretty rare frankly.


David Bowles wrote:
I believe that some PCs function better when in melee combat with NPCs as compared with attempting ranged combat. That's what saying. Any PC to me whose combat effectiveness is maximized in melee is a "melee type".

Ah. So by extension, some classes are better at doing somethings than others....by design as it were?


N N 959 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Your job is to contribute to the group effort in some useful weapon. If you're standing in the back, not soaking damage and not doing more than minimal damage with your sling, then you're not doing that job.

I've teamed with a small army of casters who for whatever reason are reduced to light crossbows while taking -4 to -8 trying to contributed. Just because I'm playing a Dwarven Paladin in full play doesn't require me to exceed that bar.

I don't have a job, so stop telling me how to play my character.

If you've actually played with that group they weren't doing their job. Whatever they'd chosen as a role, they obviously weren't pulling it off.

No one is telling you how to play your character. We're saying your role isn't determined by your class. You get to decide what role you want to fill. Once you do that, it's your job to do it well.

And to go back to the original point, since there might not be anybody at the table who chose the role of healer, even if there are divine casters present, it's probably a good idea to be able to contribute to your own healing.

Sovereign Court

N N 959 wrote:
Slacker2010 wrote:
David Bowles commented Edited wrote:
I just think it's a good idea to have your own CLW wand. Just in case the group doesn't have sufficient healing resources.
N N 959, this is what he meant to say. Do you have a problem with the statement now?
I'm not here to debate someone's opinion on how to play the game. David can think it's a good idea to run around naked or for everyone to run around with tower shield proficiency.

Then frankly I'm not sure why you're continuing, because the last page of this thread has been trying to address the root of your, frankly, confusing position.

This discussion about roles is entirely irrelevant. And we're just going to sit here arguing in circles while everyone tries to figure out what the debate is even about.

I'm pretty sure the only important argument that we're going to manage to squeeze out of this (sadly) off topic and dying argument is whether we should change the rules to allow the PCs to be compensated for consumables.

I vote yes, because material components for healing spells are expensive, as are scrolls, and some wands.

Silver Crusade

N N 959 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I believe that some PCs function better when in melee combat with NPCs as compared with attempting ranged combat. That's what saying. Any PC to me whose combat effectiveness is maximized in melee is a "melee type".
Ah. So by extension, some classes are better at doing somethings than others....by design as it were?

Yes, but you can make ranged-based paladins and melee-based clerics. So it's kind of hard to break it down by class. I prefer to break it down by build.


David Bowles wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I believe that some PCs function better when in melee combat with NPCs as compared with attempting ranged combat. That's what saying. Any PC to me whose combat effectiveness is maximized in melee is a "melee type".
Ah. So by extension, some classes are better at doing somethings than others....by design as it were?
Yes, but you can make ranged-based paladins and melee-based clerics. So it's kind of hard to break it down by class. I prefer to break it down by build.

So if a class build can do more damage than another in melee, it's their job to fight in melee?

EDIT: Sorry, I meant build, not class


thejeff wrote:
And to go back to the original point, since there might not be anybody at the table who chose the role of healer, even if there are divine casters present, it's probably a good idea to be able to contribute to your own healing.

And when I play a character who can't withstand the ravages of melee, it's better idea for me to make sure those who can are able to do so. It is 100% utterly irrelevant whether that person can contribute to the healing. What is 100% relevant is that if that person falls, I'm either going to die or fail the mission. In either case, it's a helluva lot cheaper for me to burn an entire wand of CLW then let the guy who's keeping Thorlist from gutting me fall on his face.

If you're willing to risk melee combat so I don't have to, I don't give a rat's ass if you contribute to your own healing....so long as your money is being spent to make you better at keeping me from taking damage.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

N N 959 wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I have no idea what your point is, and neither does anyone else apparently.
I'm using your self-contradictory logic against you. On one hand you want to assert you have no job and then in the same breath you want to tell my what mine is and how I need to play it.

I can find no connection between what I've said and what you've said.

I said IF your job is in melee. Not "your job is in melee"


I don't have a job, so there is no "if". My job is what I define as my job at that point in time. If my class doesn't restrict how I choose to play my character, then neither does my build.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
If you're willing to risk melee combat so I don't have to, I don't give a rat's ass if you contribute to your own healing....so long as your money is being spent to make you better at keeping me from taking damage.

But if my cleric has to keep spending money on wands and scrolls to keep that melee guy standing, then that's less money for me to buy metamagic rods and upgrade my Wisdom headband to make sure my blindness, plane shift, or sound burst spells stick (which makes that melee guy's job easier).

By demanding that someone else pay for his healing so he can afford the shiniest toys, that melee guy is demanding that I give up the shiny toys I had my eyes on.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

NN 959, you are reading stuff wrongly, or that flatly isn't there.

Silver Crusade

N N 959 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And to go back to the original point, since there might not be anybody at the table who chose the role of healer, even if there are divine casters present, it's probably a good idea to be able to contribute to your own healing.

And when I play a character who can't withstand the ravages of melee, it's better idea for me to make sure those who can are able to do so. It is 100% utterly irrelevant whether that person can contribute to the healing. What is 100% relevant is that if that person falls, I'm either going to die or fail the mission. In either case, it's a helluva lot cheaper for me to burn an entire wand of CLW then let the guy who's keeping Thorlist from gutting me fall on his face.

If you're willing to risk melee combat so I don't have to, I don't give a rat's ass if you contribute to your own healing....so long as your money is being spent to make you better at keeping me from taking damage.

I'm talking about ensuring the group doesn't run out of aggregate healing capability. Hard scenarios can easily run a single PC out of juice. It's just good policy to have CLW wand X the number of people in the group. Assuming half charges, that's 25 charges per player, and even that may not be enough.

CLW wands aren't even combat time healing. They increase party endurance to survive multiple encounters, not a single given encounter.


RainyDayNinja wrote:
By demanding that someone else pay for his healing so he can afford the shiniest toys, that melee guy is demanding that I give up the shiny toys I had my eyes on.

Nobody has demanded a damn thing. You and others keep talking about this. It has absolutely nothing to do with the point of this thread of even my assertions. You want to complain about people demanding stuff....go right ahead. Just don't quote my posts while doing so and pretend I'm in that camp.

201 to 250 of 396 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / New Rule Proposal: Consumable Reimbursement All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.