New Rule Proposal: Consumable Reimbursement

[David Bowles]

So your point is that no one can be forced into melee? It seemed to me from your first post that you were proposing that some PCs not provide any way to heal themselves and focus on other concerns. Was I mistaken?

[N N 959]

My point is that it's a fallacy to tell me that I am less effective because I didn't spend resources on my own healing. Regardless of how insignificant you think 2 PP may be, I have yet to see any statistical proof that every fighter/barbarian did better when they purchased one.

You think it's a good idea? More power to you. But players who try and shove the attitude that fighters who don't are doing it wrong down everyone's throat are as guilty of pushing stereotypes as the players who say clerics should do nothing but heal.

[David Bowles]

It's not a matter of effectiveness to me. It's a matter of when the party runs out of ways to regain hp, it usually gets pretty ugly pretty quickly. It's like a failsafe against running out of healing or running into divine casters who are stingy and want you to cough up your own healing. It's not worth arguing about to me. And yeah, I think 2 PP is pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.

[thejeff]

N N 959 wrote:

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.

No. That's fundamentally wrong. Your class defines some very broad parameters on what you can do. Any given class can potentially fill multiple roles well.

A given build however has turned that broad potential into more focused reality. It's likely to only be able to fill one role. Sometimes it may be able to switch between two. (Some casters may be able to handle more, but only with different spell load outs, not likely to change in the middle of a fight.)

But that's not restricting how you play your character. How you want to play your character determines how you build the character. And doing well at whatever you chose to do is your job. You've still got to fill a role. You've still got to contribute. You just get to choose how you're going to do that.

And no, cowering in the back throwing pebbles at the bad guys doesn't count.

[David Bowles]

"If my class doesn't restrict how I choose to play my character, then neither does my build."

I think that's the point of a "build". I don't understand why you would choose to be ineffective in a combat. It just makes everything worse.

[WalterGM]

I think part of cooperation is contributing to shared party needs (like healing, consumables, bribes, etc). I also think that everyone who plays PFS is mature enough to realize that fact, and I don't think we need any rules or conventions that force people to do one thing or another. It has nothing to do with someone's class, really, it has to do with striving for good party cooperation.

If I'm playing a character capable of casting healing spells, I'd appreciate those not capable of doing so offering use of their wand to heal the wounds they've acquired. I might prefer to cast a spell or use an ability of my own regardless, but it's still a kind gesture that they offer.

It's my belief that no single PC has all the solutions at their disposal, it takes everyone working together at the table—in combat or after—to achieve success and have a great time playing.

Gary Gygax wrote:

"No single character has all the skills and resources needed to guarantee success in all endeavors; favorable results can usually only be achieved through group effort. No single player character wins, in the sense that he or she defeats all other player characters; the goal of the forces of good can only be attained through cooperation, so that victory is a group achievement rather than an individual one."

That's what the 'cooperate' in explore, report, cooperate is to me.

Although, a bloodied barbarian handing me a sliver of wood and asking through broken teeth if I can use it to make "his inside parts go back inside" is just so adorable to me I'd just cast the darn spells myself.

[BigNorseWolf]

N N 959 wrote:

My point is that it's a fallacy to tell me that I am less effective because I didn't spend resources on my own healing. Regardless of how insignificant you think 2 PP may be, I have yet to see any statistical proof that every fighter/barbarian did better when they purchased one.

You think it's a good idea? More power to you. But players who try and shove the attitude that fighters who don't are doing it wrong down everyone's throat are as guilty of pushing stereotypes as the players who say clerics should do nothing but heal.

Absolutely not. The two ideas are so far apart that light from one idea hasn't reached the other one yet.

Player A is telling player B how to spend 2 pp.

Player B is telling player A how to spend prestige points, which deity to worship, which stats to prioritize, all of his actions for the entire game, and what gear to buy.

A comparison in kind does not make a comparison in degree.

[N N 959]

thejeff wrote:

And no, cowering in the back throwing pebbles at the bad guys doesn't count.

And now you sound like Eric Saxson who chastised Cleric who don't heal.

No, my build doesn't require that I do anything. My build is a series of choices I make and I am under no obligation to follow a course of action that you believe to be consistent with those choices.

Here is the long and short of the hypocrisy that is rank within this discussion. There's contingency of you who want to impose your value system on others. That value system is that a the guy who takes damage should pay for his own healing. If that player believes he or she is more effective by making other choices, you reject that person's choice and you go a step further. You refuse to support that player, despite their attempting to fulfill their role. But you're not done there.

When said player then makes the choice to move his character to a less optimized roll, that's unacceptable. Now you have to verbally assault said player and accuse them of not carrying their weight, refuse to team with them, or deny them full XP. Why? Because they don't do what you want them to do. At no point has said player made any demands or threats or offered any ultimatums. But that's irrelevant. The audacity of them not to subscribe to your belief of how to play is a crime.

[N N 959]

David Bowles wrote:

It's not a matter of effectiveness to me. It's a matter of when the party runs out of ways to regain hp, it usually gets pretty ugly pretty quickly. It's like a failsafe against running out of healing or running into divine casters who are stingy and want you to cough up your own healing. It's not worth arguing about to me. And yeah, I think 2 PP is pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.

For every situation where you think having a wand was helpful, I can argue that having something else would have been more helpful. You're entitled to your opinion on what is the best way to prepare your characters, just as I am entitled to mine.

[Acedio]

N N 959 wrote:

When said player then makes the choice to move his character to a less optimized roll, that's unacceptable. Now you have to verbally assault said player and accuse them of not carrying their weight, refuse to team with them, or deny them full XP. Why? Because they don't do what you want them to do. At no point has said player made any demands or threats or offered any ultimatums. But that's irrelevant. The audacity of them not to subscribe to your belief of how to play is a crime.

Source?

[TwoWolves]

If you choose to be a useful as a rubber burrito in a granite quarry, then I am within my rights to choose not to heal, buff, or support your character's "Build" in any way.

Some folks are ok with this, while others strive to make a better experience for the majority of players by fostering cooperation and teamwork.

[thejeff]

This is PFS. No one is getting less XP for anything except failing the mission. Which you standing in back throwing rocks might accomplish.

But let's leave that aside. This is still PFS. You don't know who you're playing with. What happens when no one shows up playing the traditional healbot role and no one bothered with any healing items because they all thought they could be more effective some other way?

Or for that matter the cleric is there and he didn't buy a CLW wand because he's got healing spells, but now he's out of them, because he's been trying to keep the whole party on their feet alone?

Carry your own healing and you don't have to worry about it. Same with other needed buffs. You never know what you're going to need or whether anyone else will have it for you.

[N N 959]

TwoWolves wrote:

... while others strive to make a better experience for the majority of players by fostering cooperation and teamwork.

That's right. I don't require another player to subscribe to my value system before I'll heal them. If the barbarian, who built himself to be front-line striker is standing there taking damage while dishing it out, you better believe I'm going to be team member and keep him upright.

[N N 959]

thejeff wrote:

Or for that matter the cleric is there and he didn't buy a CLW wand because he's got healing spells, but now he's out of them, because he's been trying to keep the whole party on their feet alone?

Is the cleric the only person benefiting from having meatshields? No. Nor should the cleric bare the total cost of support. If the cleric can end the encounter before anyone takes damage, you won't see me complaining.

If the cleric is the one doing the fighting and using his spells to help him fight, then my support characters are going to be healing the cleric.

[thejeff]

N N 959 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Or for that matter the cleric is there and he didn't buy a CLW wand because he's got healing spells, but now he's out of them, because he's been trying to keep the whole party on their feet alone?

Is the cleric the only person benefiting from having meatshields? No. Nor should the cleric bare the total cost of support. If the cleric can end the encounter before anyone takes damage, you won't see me complaining.

If the cleric is the one doing the fighting and using his spells to help him fight, then my support characters are going to be healing the cleric.

And if you brought your non-support character?

You skipped the whole "What happens when everyone subscribes to the Don't bother buying my own consumables because that's the support characters job" part of the question. You know, the main point.
It's not about who heals the cleric. It's about the cleric not being able to keep up with the damage on his own. Maybe you've got 4 meatshields. Or 3 and a now burned out cleric.

If you've brought your own healing and other needed consumables, you know they'll be there when you need them. If you rely on whoever else shows up, they might not be.

[David Bowles]

N N 959 wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

It's not a matter of effectiveness to me. It's a matter of when the party runs out of ways to regain hp, it usually gets pretty ugly pretty quickly. It's like a failsafe against running out of healing or running into divine casters who are stingy and want you to cough up your own healing. It's not worth arguing about to me. And yeah, I think 2 PP is pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.

For every situation where you think having a wand was helpful, I can argue that having something else would have been more helpful. You're entitled to your opinion on what is the best way to prepare your characters, just as I am entitled to mine.

Yes, you can argue, but I'm going to say that a battery of (4.5 * 50) =225 hps is probably better than most other items available with 2PP. I still say you are taking needless risk by not having CLW wand on every single PC.

"No, my build doesn't require that I do anything. My build is a series of choices I make and I am under no obligation to follow a course of action that you believe to be consistent with those choices."

Why would you build a PC and then have them NOT do the thing or things you built them to do?

[Alceste008]

First, I am in favor of the new rule. You are a member of group who can cooperate to achieve a goal. You should not be forced to thou.

Second, you should never expect to force a role on anyone else. Your character needs to as self sufficient as possible. My dervish dance magus does great damage but I still have a wand and potions to help healing.

[graywulfe]

How the hell did this thread end up here?

The idea is to allow, key word there ALLOW, players at the table to reimburse people they "borrow" consumables from. To repay that person by returning a consumable, identical to that borrowed, to the loaning character.

[N N 959]

David Bowles wrote:

Why would you build a PC and then have them NOT do the thing or things you built them to do?

There are a dozen reasons. Off the top of my head risk aversion and facilitating others are two of the most common.

thejeff wrote:

You skipped the whole "What happens when everyone subscribes to the Don't bother buying my own consumables because that's the support characters job" part of the question.

When I run into that situation, it will be the first. Far more of a problem is having an unbalanced group and a few CLWs wands/potions do nothing to resolve that.

And finally, I never said someone shouldn't buy consumables. But IMO, a barbarian buying cure potions is a waste of money and I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise.

[thejeff]

N N 959 wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

Why would you build a PC and then have them NOT do the thing or things you built them to do?

There are a dozen reasons. Off the top of my head risk aversion and facilitating others are two of the most common.

thejeff wrote:

You skipped the whole "What happens when everyone subscribes to the Don't bother buying my own consumables because that's the support characters job" part of the question.

When I run into that situation, it will be the first. Far more of a problem is having an unbalanced group and a few CLWs wands/potions do nothing to resolve that.

And finally, I never said someone shouldn't buy consumables. But IMO, a barbarian buying cure potions is a waste of money and I've seen nothing to convince me otherwise.

No one has said otherwise. At least for cure Potions. Wands are the recommendation.

(Maybe one Cure potion for dire emergencies. Pour this into me when I'm unconscious kind of thing)

[Mystic Lemur]

Thinking on this a little further, I'm not sure I support the rule change. I don't like the idea of preparing after the fact. I don't like the idea of being pressured to solve other people's problems.

Another character's lack of planning should not be an emergency that I have to solve. "But it's okay, I'll pay you back" just doesn't make up for you not being prepared in the first place.

[graywulfe]

Mystic Lemur wrote:

Thinking on this a little further, I'm not sure I support the rule change. I don't like the idea of preparing after the fact. I don't like the idea of being pressured to solve other people's problems.

Another character's lack of planning should not be an emergency that I have to solve. "But it's okay, I'll pay you back" just doesn't make up for you not being prepared in the first place.

Better that than I give them something I spent my money on and they are not even allowed to replace it. There will always be unprepared people. This rule would not change that.

[Elbedor]

The Party cannot send the Warrior forward demanding he take the brunt of the attacks and then not offer to heal him when he needs it.

The Warrior cannot expect the Support to foot the bill of his healing so that at the end of the session he gets to walk away with zero gold loss and the Support is limping off with an empty purse.

Everyone contributes. Everyone kicks in the resources to keep the group topped off. The Missiles and Casters in back each contribute a wand or scrolls or whatnot, even though they may never need them (because they're not getting hit). The Support does as well (as he moves about the field). And so does the Warrior on the frontline (who will probably need most of the resources).

Everyone contributes although not everyone will need to partake.

If someone is unwilling to contribute, then he is not being a team player (which makes no sense to me considering the setup of this game). That PC may find himself in trouble when no one else in the group is willing to help him out.

[Elbedor]

Regarding the OP, I'm of the camp that should a PC desire an item another PC has, then he should be free to use it (with permission of course). It seems easy enough for the GM to count the item as spent for the session and then at the end of the session deduct the cost from the PC who used it (in gold or PP) and restore the item to the PC that lent it out.

[Arkos]

graywulfe wrote:

How the hell did this thread end up here?

The idea is to allow, key word there ALLOW, players at the table to reimburse people they "borrow" consumables from. To repay that person by returning a consumable, identical to that borrowed, to the loaning character.

Wow. This is like three threads in one.

I'm going to use an analogy. Anyone who wants to take issue with that is free to move on.

"Cooperate" means different things to different people.

Sometimes my characters go Pathfindering with the Light Warriors who all get along and choose teamwork feats and are great taking one for the team.

Sometimes my characters go Pathfindering because it's a job, and while I'm grateful for help, healing, and support, I don't expect it.

In either one of these cases, and each of the myriad cases in between, if someone helps me out, I'd like to pay them back for it. This proposal helps me no matter what is going on IF someone else has aid and IF they allow me to use it.

So, the expectation of aid notwithstanding, if I am helped, I'd like to pay them back for it. That seems good no matter what the party play style of the moment is.

[N N 959]

Elbedor wrote:

The Party cannot send the Warrior forward demanding he take the brunt of the attacks and then not offer to heal him when he needs it.

The Warrior cannot expect the Support to foot the bill of his healing so that at the end of the session he gets to walk away with zero gold loss and the Support is limping off with an empty purse.

The idea that all people should share equally in the cost of healing is a popular sentiment and seems logical on the surface, but it overlooks some very crucial facts:

1. Risk should equal reward. All characters do not experience equal risk.

The character who puts herself between her party and the bad guys incurs far more risk than those who don't. The chief among those is death. In First Steps, the character who has to face off against great-axe raging barbarian Lem stares death in the face. The guy who stands in the back, does not. My support characters, regardless of class will pay a premium to avoid melee and all the calamity associated with it.

2. Bang for the buck. Cheaper to support the best option.

It behooves me, as someone who plans on providing healing/buffs to provide those to the people who use them most effectively. I would much rather heal a fighter who has spent his money on weapons and armor than the fighter who has spent his money on wands and potions. It's a lot cheaper for me to keep the guy with a 24 AC standing, then that guy with 19 AC. It's a lot cheaper for me to keep the guy with 2d6+16 on damage standing than the guy doing 1d8+4. And by the same token, it might be cheaper to buy the mage a scroll of fireball than to guy a wand for the fighter. The quicker you kill the bad guy, the less damage you take and the cheaper it is for everyone. Refusing to heal the bad-ass barbarian because he didn't bring his own wand is arguably stupidity. You'll go home with far less loot.

So while I seem to advocate a fighter should have to pay to heal damage he incurred damaging others, my fighter might just easily chip in to buy the magic user an extra scroll of Fireball to deal with a specific threat.

3. Were' not mutually dependent. I need him more than he needs me.

My Investigator benefits for more from having a tank then the tank benefits from having me an Investigator. This is not only true on functional perspective, but as fun perspective. I enjoy the game a lot more when my archery ranger has someone front of him so that he can shoot arrows all day. If I could hire a robot and all I had to pay for that service was keep it healed I would gladly do it. I find it illogical to change that perspective because it's another PC that I'm healing.

4. It's really a closed system. Everyone benefits from the money everyone earns/spends.

What may be hard to understand or recognize is they money we all earn, benefits us all, regardless of who gets it and who spends it. That fighter used his PP to remove conditions so as not to spend gold, spends that saved gold on new weapons and armor. Who do you think the benefits from that new 'shiny?' Just the fighter? No. Everyone who teams with said fighter.

It may feel like the fighter you never see again is running off with your gold, but the next fighter who did the same thing, is bringing in that same gold which she's going to use to make it easier on the party and save you more money. This may not seem like valid line of reasoning to many, but I offer it as something to think about.

The only time you're getting screwed is when said front-liners DON'T spend their money on being better fighters. A front-liner blowing all their resources on vanities or fluff, would undermine the benefit a person would get from healing said front-liner.

***
I'm not trying to make a federal case of this, just challenge the conventional thinking/"wisdom." What does this say about the policy? Initially I am for the idea of a allowing someone to repay something that you've consumed. But if it compelled fighters to start paying back all the potions they were given to defend the group and then couldn't upgrade weapons/armor as a result, I'd probably be against it.

[Avatar-1]

I don't know if this very easy solution has been suggested already but:

Can two players talk to each other, out of character, to say "if I were to use my item on you, would you be okay reimbursing me?"

Then based on the yes or no answer, the first player can take their course of action.

[Acedio]

N N 959 wrote:

Stuff

I can't help but wonder if your GM never tosses it up by killing people who aren't out on the front lines. There are things such as, I don't know, spells and arrows that are intended to hit people in the back. We keep talking about "healer needs to invest in healing the tank" but how about everybody else? Yeah, the tank should get hit the most, but that's just in theory. Other members of the group should be at risk if just a little bit. Have you really never run into a disgusting caster that packs a horrid wilting and takes out half of your group? People can get killed by a bad save just like they can be killed by raw damage.

Also, the thing about this rule change is it would be voluntary. If you don't want to reimburse the "healer" for their resources that's the business of the people at your table. And I'm really, very sure that if you made the argument that "if I don't reimburse you for this BOL scroll, I can get this instead and that would help me in the long run," unless you are single-handedly breaking someones bank by dying constantly there's likely a compromise to be made.

And, once again, we keep ignoring the fact that restoration for permanent negative levels and having spare breath of life scrolls are costs that are best purchased in preparation, and are also expensive.

[Elbedor]

@ NN 959

1. Risk is reversible. If the warrior dies he can be raised and restored...with everyone sharing the cost. There is no reason that one person should bear that burden.

2. I have no problem spending spell slots or other non-consumable things just as you are doing with your weapons and armor. But why should I expend consumables (money that is forever gone) while you do not? I have no desire to party with someone who is just going to drain my resources dry.

3. Need is mutual. The tank can only get so far on his own without support.

4. The team also benefits from the Cleric buying that nice +4 Headband and that Pearl of Power. But if he has to burn his gold on healing/raising/restoring you, then he cannot afford said Headband and Pearl and the party suffers as a result.

Ultimately we all bear the burden.

Warrior kicks in a CLW wand.
Healer kicks in a CLW wand.
Rogue kicks in a CLW wand.

Odds are the warrior will need most of that while the Rogue will need little to none. By session's end, everyone is back to full health and minus a few charges each on their respective wands.

The warrior did not have to cover all of his healing. That is the payment to him for taking point.

The rogue lost charges even though he never got hurt. That is his cost to the warrior for being protected.

Onto the next table.

[Elbedor]

Avatar-1 wrote:

I don't know if this very easy solution has been suggested already but:

Can two players talk to each other, out of character, to say "if I were to use my item on you, would you be okay reimbursing me?"

Then based on the yes or no answer, the first player can take their course of action.

My understanding is that technically this is not legal, but there are many GM's who would allow it.

"Hey everyone, I can buff the tank with X to keep him alive as we fight these giants, but since the Material cost is 1000gps and there are 5 of us, everyone ok with kicking in 200gp each to cover the cost?"

At this time I see nothing wrong with this.

[Lormyr]

In organized play, rules are important.

Fun, fairness, and promoting cooperation are more important.

I could get behind allowing players to reimburse one another for expendables other players used on their behalf. As far as I can see, Rogue Eidolon laid out a pretty solid parameter for doing so.

[N N 959]

Elbedor wrote:

@ NN 959

1. Risk is reversible. If the warrior dies he can be raised and restored...with everyone sharing the cost. There is no reason that one person should bear that burden.

Not if the party doesn't have the funds or simply doesn't want to. Was in a game where the Rogue had to stand his ground and got cursed. Nobody offered to pay or share the expenses. I would have helped, but I had my own curse to pay for me, which I got while taking point. Nobody offered to pay for it.

So no. Risk is not reversed. IME, people are more more likely to understand healing the fighter for damage in combat than paying for condition removal at the end of the scenario.

More the point, if the party can't or won't help with condition removal, it's too late for the character to mitigate the damage. If the party won't heal/buff, then the fighter can at least avoid melee combat from that point forward. So sorry, it's not the same thing by a longshot.

Acedio wrote:

Stuff

1. Everyone standing around and getting hit by fireballs isn't a functional role I've asked another party member to take on or need someone to perform. Blocking the hallway or standing in melee so I don't have to ...is.

2. If six party members get blasted and you can only heal one...then the group has to decide who gets healed. Maybe you don't need the fighter to do an more fighting...so you don't heal her. Maybe from the get go, the entire scenario is a trap crawl and its the rogue taking damage. Then you heal the rogue. If I'm a fighter and I have buff potions that could help the rogue...then I'd give them to the rogue. If I'm asking someone else to incur risk so I don't have to, then I should be prepared to support that character, or incur the risk myself.

[Acedio]

N N 959 wrote:

1. Everyone standing around and getting hit by fireballs isn't a functional role I've asked another party member to take on or need someone to perform. Blocking the hallway or standing in melee so I don't have to ...is.

I don't understand why that's relevant at all. It doesn't change the fact that the people who aren't taking "point" can still take damage, and have bad things happen to them, and they ought to have the option of helping foot the bill for resources expended to fix them up.

Quote:

2. If six party members get blasted and you can only heal one...then the group has to decide who gets healed. Maybe you don't need the fighter to do an more fighting...so you don't heal her. Maybe from the get go, the entire scenario is a trap crawl and its the rogue taking damage. Then you heal the rogue. If I'm a fighter and I have buff potions that could help the rogue...then I'd give them to the rogue. If I'm asking someone else to incur risk so I don't have to, then I should be prepared to support that character, or incur the risk myself.

I'm not talking about this at all. And this is not the point of this conversation. I don't know why it keeps getting revisited. You keep talking about resource prioritization in your posts. The next logical question is, why is resource prioritization such a huge problem? Well, because they're limited. Could they be less limited if people came with their own resources?

What I'm getting at is, if I have to heal a lot of people, then it's helpful if they have some resources to help me do that so I don't run out super quickly and have some for later, and so I don't have to replace all my stuff too frequently. Really, that we keep bring up this false bifurcation that "you can only heal one person" is strong evidence that we should encourage people to bring their own cheap healing resources to the table.

Your argument seems to be based off of what I find to be a poor assumption: the point takes most of the damage (and because that's his "role" he should pay less for healing). That doesn't happen all the time. The guy doing point may have a monstrous AC and might actually not get hit. The guy doing point may be doing such a good job doing point, that the bad guys decide to hit somebody else because they're more squishy. The guy doing point might be completely ignored because he's not the desired target. Stuff happens. We can't keep looking at that one scenario and acting like its representative. You're not always going to have a point just like you won't always have a healer.

But we're just sitting here arguing in circles and going nowhere. That you don't want to share the burden of the healing cost is actually completely irrelevant. Because all this topic is asking for is the OPTION to share. If you don't want to share, that's totally your call and is totally cool. But then this rule is still no skin off your nose. Continuously saying that you would personally rather not help foot the bill of the healing when you're taking point doesn't even address the policy suggestion at hand, but it does derail the topic pretty well.

[N N 959]

Acedio wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

1. Everyone standing around and getting hit by fireballs isn't a functional role I've asked another party member to take on or need someone to perform. Blocking the hallway or standing in melee so I don't have to ...is.

I don't understand why that's relevant at all. It doesn't change the fact that the people who aren't taking "point" can still take damage, and have bad things happen to them, and they ought to have the option of helping foot the bill for resources expended to fix them up.

That's because you're talking about something that has nothing to do with my first post on this topic: refuting the notion that the fighter who doesn't bring healing isn't pulling his weight or is not a team player or is any one of the other value-based labels being bandied about.

You think everyone bringing a heal potion or a wand or scroll is a good idea? Great.

Quote:

I'm not talking about this at all.

Then why do you keep responding to my posts? You want to talk about something different. Great....don't quote my posts.

Quote:

Your argument seems to be based off of what I find to be a poor assumption: the point takes most of the damage (and because that's his "role" he should pay less for healing).

No. My point is if you want someone to stand between you and Lem's greataxe, then you should support them in that role, otherwise man the post.

Quote:

Because all this topic is asking for is the OPTION to share.

And as others have noted, that option could result in a culture or an expectation. At the start, I was in support of that option. But the more I hear your perspective and others, the more I feel that back row character whose player expects someone else to take the axe in the gut, should not expect to be compensated for paying someone else to incur that risk. If we remove that option, then we reduce the likelihood of guilt trips and recusals.

To put it another way, you want to heal the tank because it benefits you...then you've healed the tank because it benefited you. You shouldn't get paid back for that. But I do acknowledge that this is only one facet of the rule change. I'm sure there are some situations where I might be in favor or optional pay back and I would agree that it seems abnormal to not allow it as a matter of course.

[The Fox]

I play an equal number of support characters and front-liners. I am in favor of this rule change, but NOT because I expect other PCs to repay my support characters. I am backing this rule change because I want my front-liners to be able to repay other people's support characters.

[David Bowles]

I think this rule is, in general, fine as well. This is a team effort, after all.

[Charon's Little Helper]

While I agree with this rule in theory - it would also have issues.

I could easily see some players blowing through expendables unnecessarily and then guilting the other players into helping to pay for them.

[Elbedor]

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

While I agree with this rule in theory - it would also have issues.

I could easily see some players blowing through expendables unnecessarily and then guilting the other players into helping to pay for them.

That is why it is important that there is agreement beforehand. If I blow an expensive item on someone without any kind of agreement of repayment, then there is no repayment.

And yes everything is reversible. But if party members refuse to chip in to cover the cost of it, then that is another issue entirely...which is exactly what this topic helps to address.

[Charon's Little Helper]

@ NN959

I have no idea what you're really arguing for or against. You seem to be arguing in circles and talking past people. Perhaps some of it is meant to be sarcasm or some such - but sarcasm generally doesn't translate well to text, and I can't tell.

[Unklbuck]

Well this is how I play my Clerics...

I'm up front fighting with the meatshields if there are any...sometimes I'm the meatshield
During combat I will use spells and channels as needed to keep people alive.
Out of Combat I expect everyone to have their own means to heal themselves back up to full..either wands of CLW or infernal Healing...I will happily use their wands if they are incapabile of casting themselves.
Now if they do not have any such healing and they actually have PP's which could have been used to purchase one I will read them the riot act. I will not use up my channels and prepared spells out of combat to bring them up to full hit points because they are too cheap or "playing my character" to have invested in a wand...if they give me the "I'm just playing my character BS" then I I'll tell them I'm just playing mines as well and he refuses to help the unprepared.
Now such things as Restorations and Cure Diseases are different...if I have them and the party is prepared so I didn't have to convert them to Healing spells I will gladly cast them...usually at the end of the adventure so people do not have to pay for spellcasting services to remove negative conditions...is someone was being a dick about not providing their own OOC healing...I may decline to remove any negative conditions they might have...after all "I'm just playing my character and 'INSERT DIETYS NAME' helps those who help themselves"

[redward]

N N 959 wrote:

No. My point is if you want someone to stand between you and Lem's greataxe, then you should support them in that role, otherwise man the post.

I'm going to dive in here one more time and attempt to approach this from scratch.

I believe your assertions are the following. I would very much appreciate if you would correct any misinterpretations or assumptions I've made:

1. A front-line melee combatant is usually at greater risk of hit-point loss (and therefore death) than other characters in a given party.

1a. As such, that character's resources are best spent on items and consumables that will help him avoid damage (either through mitigation or through killing enemies faster)

1b. As such, the other characters in the party should be willing to chip in to heal the character that stands between them and likely hit-point loss (and therefore death)

With regards to this proposed rule change:

2. You don't like it because it could be used to guilt or otherwise pressure a front-line character into paying for consumables that you don't believe he should be on the hook for in the first place (as per #1, above). e.g. "I shouldn't have to repay you for that scroll of Breath of Life, as without me taking all those hits, it would have been a TPK rather than just me dropping."

In the interest of avoiding the pitfalls of Internet communication, none of the above is meant to be read sarcastically, nor are they intended as 'gotcha' questions. I'm just trying to understand your rationale, as up to this point you have told me I am misunderstanding and mis-stating your position.

[N N 959]

I think my first post in this thread was in support of the rule change barring some explanation from PFS heads of state as to why the restriction is there in the first place.

Then way later Lavode posted this:

Quote:

There are a few martial types at our local who buy nothing other than a potion of cure serious wounds then they save everything else is saved for the supper mondo weapon of uber mightiness.

I pointed out that this is valid way to approach the problem of surviving encounters. Whether it's better or worse to siphon off funds towards healing, isn't really provable. Perhaps it was the way I worded my response, or my own attempt to debunk the idea you aren't a team player if you haven't bought a CLW wand, but obviously this irked some people.

Now grant it, in retrospect maybe Lavode was talking about buying things like rope and torches, but I was giving these players the benefit of the doubt that they were employing a kill faster approach. Perhaps later in the thread, it was pointed out that they were doing things like buying a +4 weapon (which may be a poor decision if one is trying to be a better killer).

redward wrote:

I believe your assertions are the following....

Very close.

1b. Party members have the choice of healing the guy who's standing between them and Lem or they can choose not to and face Lem themselves. If you don't want to heal the guy fighting Lem, then step up and take Lem on yourself. Maybe that will work out for you, maybe it won't. If Lem hits and crits you past Con, nobody's bringing you back at 1st level.

Depending on party make-up, or the specific challenges, the rules may change. If at some point, my fighter is ill-equipped to take point and has to hide behind the Wizard with Mage Armor and Shield, then I'll be more than happy to contribute funds to keeping the Wizard alive and I won't expect the Wizard to contribute/use his wands of healing as he is bearing the risk. Grant it, things aren't cut and dry, so players have to find a system that works for them.

Nobody's forced to do anything, nothing is being demanded of anyone.

redward wrote:

With regards to this proposed rule change:

I'm seeing a possible downside to the proposed rule change that I didn't see before as brought on by the groupthink that everyone needs to buy a CLW wand or they are evil. It's not a show stopper, but as I suggested at the beginning of this post, I really want to know why Mike, John, and whoever else is involved, have removed the option to give back an item that was given.

[Smite Makes Right]

David Bowles wrote:

Yes, you can argue, but I'm going to say that a battery of (4.5 * 50) =225 hps is probably better than most other items available with 2PP. I still say you are taking needless risk by not having CLW wand on every single PC.

I'm not trying to get involved in this discussion, but I wanted to point out that Cure Light Wounds is a 1d8 +1. That's 5.5 * 50 = 275 hit points. If the recipient has the Fey Foundling Feat, that's 7.5 * 50 = 375. Though, if someone is dead set against a CLW Wand, they probably won't have Fey Foundling either.

[N N 959]

Unklbuck wrote:

.is someone was being a dick about not providing their own OOC healing

So is someone who doesn't buy a wand of CLW or potion being a "dick"?

I've yet to see anyone demand healing, but I imagine it does happen.

Quote:

..I may decline to remove any negative conditions they might have...after all "I'm just playing my character and 'INSERT DIETYS NAME' helps those who help themselves"

And if the group doesn't have a cleric, or doesn't have a cleric high enough to cast said spells, then it's probably a good idea for said character to have saved her PP for those services.

[David Bowles]

Smite Makes Right wrote:

David Bowles wrote:

Yes, you can argue, but I'm going to say that a battery of (4.5 * 50) =225 hps is probably better than most other items available with 2PP. I still say you are taking needless risk by not having CLW wand on every single PC.

I'm not trying to get involved in this discussion, but I wanted to point out that Cure Light Wounds is a 1d8 +1. That's 5.5 * 50 = 275 hit points. If the recipient has the Fey Foundling Feat, that's 7.5 * 50 = 375. Though, if someone is dead set against a CLW Wand, they probably won't have Fey Foundling either.

Yeah, I did the math without the +1. Oops. Fey Foundling is very awesome, too.

[Sin of Asmodeus]

Going to chime in here.

For every person who says people must purchase a CLW wand. I'll retort and say this.
I'll buy an Infernal Healing Wand to give out 500 hp. But everyone must accept it as legitimate healing.

I'll also say this. I'll buy the consumables I believe I will need. I will support as best as I can. However, I'm not kicking in to replace someone else's expendables.

We all have costs that we need to take care of. We all support each other. If Paizo wanted to reimburse each other for things used in a mod, they would give us access to over the cap gold.

If you do not know what over the cap gold is, it is gold that is found in an adventure that exceeds the maximum pay out per character at the end of the adventure. I.E. In a tier 1-2 There is enough gold to give each player 1k gold, however the cert only calls for 500 gold. The rest disappears. Over the cap gold would allow the remaining 500 to be pooled and used to replace potions or someone's wand.

If that's what you're looking for than advocate for that, not for everyone else to pay in more. Because the second that happens, than we have people dying at the end of a module, and asking everyone to chip in a thousand gold each to bring them back to life.

Sorry, but no.

Thank you however for the pleasing discourse.

[BigNorseWolf]

For every person who says people must purchase a CLW wand. I'll retort and say this.
I'll buy an Infernal Healing Wand to give out 500 hp.

I don't think anyone is arguing that infernal healing isn't an acceptable substitute.

[David Bowles]

I use CLW because it is less controversial and it is a LOT of spell lists.

[Ferious Thune]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

For every person who says people must purchase a CLW wand. I'll retort and say this.

I'll buy an Infernal Healing Wand to give out 500 hp.

I don't think anyone is arguing that infernal healing isn't an acceptable substitute.

Yeah, Infernal Healing is fine, as far as I'm concerned. Though I do think people often gloss over the 1 minute per casting to actually heal the hit points. That can be a big deal when party buffs are running and you need a lot of hit points back. Even though it's more reliable, you don't always have 5 minutes to wait around. My Sorcerer carries both a Wand of Infernal Healing and a Wand of CLW (and scrolls of Cure Serious and Breath of Life and Lesser Restoration to UMD, but he's a support character, mostly).

I'm fine with the original proposal. I'd happily chip in for consumables I had to borrow, or for ones used to support the party. Scrolls of Teleport or Dimension Door, Breath of Life, even Potions of Fly and things like that. I also don't think the expectation that people must contribute to those things will be there. At least not at the level that it's a thing to be worried about. We already have resource sharing when it comes to spell services Raise Dead, Resoration, etc.), and I've never been at a table where a player asked me to chip in on those things. I've been at many a table where, as soon as a player dropped, multiple other players chimed in with, "Don't worry, we'll help cover the Raise Dead." I've also contributed many times and had people contribute to me. I once had a character I was ready to let die for good, since he had just hit 3rd level when he was killed and didn't have anywhere close to enough gold or prestige, but the party insisted on paying enough to bring him back, because they didn't want to continue a difficult scenario down a man.

With regards to what N N 959 has been talking about, I don't think most people disagree with him that much. If someone is incurring damage that would otherwise go to other party members, I'm happy to chip in on their healing, and I'm going to try to keep them up in combat. To say, here, go and take all of the damage, then heal yourself isn't a good way to go about things. If someone is taking damage for the party, then the party should all share in their healing.

N N 959, where we disagree, and the point I want to make for others who might be influenced by your posts, is that by not carrying a means of healing, even just a Wand of CLW, you're saying two things. You're saying that the party is 100% responsible for all of your healing. When I say the party should all share in healing the tank... the party includes the tank. If healing whoever is on the front lines is the responsibility of the party, realize that even if you are on the front lines, you're still a member of the party and still share that responsibility.

Second, I believe you used an example earlier of a Rogue placed out front to check for traps, and that you'd gladly contribute to healing the Rogue when that was the case. But if you do not carry any means of healing, you can't contribute to healing the Rogue. So you've created a situation where you're saying to the party that when you put your character's life on the line for the good of the group, the group is responsible for healing you, but when another character puts their life on the line for the group, you don't feel that you need to contribute to healing them. That's the problem I have with someone not carrying a Wand of CLW (or some other means of healing, whatever that may be). Maybe you'd chip in if the Rogue is killed and help pay for the Raise Dead. Maybe if you brought a Wand of CLW, the Rogue might not die in the first place.

One last example from one of my own characters. I have a Negative Energy based Oracle/Warpriest. I make sure to mention when I join a game that he is not a healing oracle. He's a melee character with Negative Energy Affinity (He's healed by Negative Energy, not Positive Energy). I've gone through great pains to insure he has plenty of means to heal himself (Death's Touch Revelation, Fervor, Inflict Light Wounds, Inflict Light Wounds Wand). That's out of necessity, because without those things, he'd likely die. What I also do with that character, though, is to carry a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, because even though it will never benefit him for healing himself, it gives him a way to heal others when needed or when they've put themselves on the line for the party. He also happens to be the character mentioned above who died at 3rd level, in part because of his weird build. There was one other character conscious, a Halfling Rogue, who did not have a means to inflict negative energy and who failed their Heal check to stabilize him. I felt guilty, because it was a result of me not quite having my build right yet that I died in the first place. Before he went down, however, my Oracle spent several rounds running from the creature and casting Stabilize on the rest of the party, because it was clear I wasn't going to drop it in a round, but it was definitely going to drop me. I'd imagine the fact that, despite not being a support character, I saved two or three characters from needing a Raise Dead of their own contributed to them being willing to chip in on mine. If I had no way to contribute to party "healing" (Stabilize or a Wand or Potions of Cure Light Wounds), it would likely have been a TPK (or the Halfling would have run and been the only survivor.)

So, N N 959, while I don't expect to convince you of anything, if there are others out there reading this thread, here's my advice. No, you are not required to buy any item in PFS, and no one can tell you that you have to. There are a lot of extremely valid reasons why, however, the minimal investment a Wand of CLW or a Wand of Infernal Healing, or some means of providing healing for yourself or others is one of the best ways to spend 2 prestige.

[David Bowles]

Regardless of others' assertions, I still maintain it is THE best use of 2PP.