New Rule Proposal: Consumable Reimbursement


Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild

301 to 350 of 396 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
*

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

Let me ask you some rhetorical questions, David.

Do you think if five characters are carrying CLWs wands, the odds of party success are significantly increased by a sixth person purchasing another wand?

Let's do some simple math:

Each use of CLW wand is worth 15 gp. So if a scenario sucks up 20 CLW charges, that's 60gp per five people. If that sixth person buys a CLW wand and contributes equally, now each person has spent 50gp each.

Now me personally, I'd rather the fighter spend that 50gp on an Oil of Bless weapon so any of his crits against an evil creature are confirmed. But that's me. I know you haven't been talking about the money burden, but if someone out there would rather save the 10gp, or 20gp or 30gp (if it's 60 charges), that's their call.

If nobody had a wand of CLW in the group, then I'd agree the first person to purchase one is significantly increasing a low level party's chance of success. But each additional wand provides a diminishing benefit. After the fourth or fifth wand in the group, you have to ask yourself if it might make more sense to spend that 2 PP on something else.

Yes, I know everyone doesn't have one. But I've yet to be in group that didn't have at least four wands before 2nd level.

***

I think part of the problem is that some seem to think only the Warriors are the ones spending their money and PP on gear.

News Flash:
Everyone is spending their wealth on gear that makes them better in some way. So why is it everyone else's responsibility (other than the fighter) to spend some of their wealth on healing?

This is the point that some keep missing. Sure a fighter can spend his 50 gold on an Oil of Bless Weapon to make himself more effective if he wants to. But then the Rogue can also elect to spend his money on something other than those wand charges in an attempt to make himself more effective too. In fact the Cleric and Ranger and Wizard can all do the same thing. Then all of a sudden you have a party where no one carries a CLW wand.

Not a fun situation to be in.

2-4 PP is cheap compared to how much you will earn. And staying topped off is MUCH cheaper than reversing death. And the beauty is, this wand discussion can be accomplished without any rule changes. 6 people in the party and 24 charges needed throughout the course of the session? 4 off each person. It doesn't even matter if the Warrior sucks up 18 of those and the Wizard in the back needs none. The 4 charges the Wizard contributed is "payment" to the Warrior for standing up front soaking up the damage so the Wizard didn't have to.

Silver Crusade *****

N N 959 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Regardless of others' assertions, I still maintain it is THE best use of 2PP.

Let me ask you some rhetorical questions, David.

Do you think if five characters are carrying CLWs wands, the odds of party success are significantly increased by a sixth person purchasing another wand?

So what happens when everyone thinks like that?

*

The first time I'm in group of six where there aren't at least three or four wands, I'll let you know. ALL of my non-melee types carry healing wands and my archery ranger (who hasn't drawn a sword since like level 1) carries both IH and CLW.

Elbedor wrote:
So why is it everyone else's responsibility (other than the fighter) to spend some of their wealth on healing?

Who said it was anyone's "responsibility"?

If you are a character that isn't build to withstand melee, then you have a decision to make. For my non-melee characters, it's a no-brainer: support the guys who are taking the damage so I don't have to. For my non-melee characters, a CLW/IH wand is a must, regardless of whether anyone else contributes to the healing. In fact, I will refuse the wands from front-liners exactly because of my belief they should not be burning their resources to heal themselves. It's not my responsibility, it's my choice.

****

N N 959 wrote:
For my non-melee characters, a CLW/IH wand is a must, regardless of whether anyone else contributes to the healing. In fact, I will refuse the wands from front-liners exactly because of my belief they should not be burning their resources to heal themselves. It's not my responsibility, it's my choice.

And that's awesome (not being sarcastic). I love it when party members willingly give to help each other out.

But if your melee character shows up without a wand, then the support characters in that party aren't presented with the choice of 'use my charges' vs. 'use his charges'. You've made that choice for them by not having a wand. They instead have a different choice: 'use my wand charges' vs. 'he doesn't get healed'. And if they choose the latter, you get to the choice you've presented: 'stay here and get beat on without healing' vs. 'go to the back and avoid damage.' There's no room for negotiation ("how about you guys use two charges on me for every one I use, since I'll be taking the brunt of the damage?") because you've come to the table with an all-or-nothing situation.

Or, approaching it from a different angle: as you sit at the table, you explain that you don't have a wand and why. The rest of the party says 'fine, but we're not using our charges to heal you.' You say, 'fine, but I'm not taking point if you're not going to support me.' So far, I believe everyone's adhering to the social contract you've proposed. Now, deep into the scenario, a fireball or two gets dropped on you and the rest of the party. You're in single digit HP after the encounter wraps up. Are they obligated to heal? As agreed upon, you weren't front-lining, and therefore not requiring their support. Or do you produce a wand and say 'use this, I carry it, but I don't think I should have to use my charges if I'm in the front-lines.'

I hope you don't read the above as flippant. I just see so many similar situations where, should all front-liners share your philosophy, a party would be in a dangerous--or at best tense--situation right from the start. Maybe your local make-up is different, but I sit at a lot of tables where the closest we have to a healer is a Ranger or Bard (or Sorcerer) who can activate a wand. If those were the only people expected to provide healing resources, things would get ugly fast.

Liberty's Edge

It's everyone's responsibility to have a good time and, to a degree, to ensure that everyone else has a good time too. This is true whether a diverse party shows up or everyone's a tank.

Thanks to this discussion, I won't spend pp for a full wand, but I will buy the half full CLW wand from a chronicle sheet. I am a Paladin so I should be okay without one, but just in case...

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

UndeadMitch wrote:
So what happens when everyone thinks like that?

Do you not check wands at character introduction? Because one of the standard questions I ask is "Does someone need to pick up a wand for this scenario?"

Silver Crusade **

N N 959 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Regardless of others' assertions, I still maintain it is THE best use of 2PP.

Let me ask you some rhetorical questions, David.

Do you think if five characters are carrying CLWs wands, the odds of party success are significantly increased by a sixth person purchasing another wand?

Let's do some simple math:

Each use of CLW wand is worth 15 gp. So if a scenario sucks up 20 CLW charges, that's 60gp per five people. If that sixth person buys a CLW wand and contributes equally, now each person has spent 50gp each.

Now me personally, I'd rather the fighter spend that 50gp on an Oil of Bless weapon so any of his crits against an evil creature are confirmed. But that's me. I know you haven't been talking about the money burden, but if someone out there would rather save the 10gp, or 20gp or 30gp (if it's 60 charges), that's their call.

If nobody had a wand of CLW in the group, then I'd agree the first person to purchase one is significantly increasing a low level party's chance of success. But each additional wand provides a diminishing benefit. After the fourth or fifth wand in the group, you have to ask yourself if it might make more sense to spend that 2 PP on something else.

Yes, I know everyone doesn't have one. But I've yet to be in group that didn't have at least four wands before 2nd level.

If you played with a consistent group I would 100% agree. But you can't not a priori who has what gear. It's just best to cover your behind with something like a hp battery.

*

redward wrote:


But if your melee character shows up without a wand, then the support characters in that party aren't presented with the choice of 'use my charges' vs. 'use his charges'. You've made that choice for them by not having a wand.

I haven't made any choice for them. Their choice is to heal someone or not to heal someone. That's choice hasn't changed. My carrying a wand doesn't change that choice, it just forces you to confront it more often.

Quote:
They instead have a different choice: 'use my wand charges' vs. 'he doesn't get healed'.

A lot of how we as humans value our choices and our options is based on how they are farmed. The choice is expend my resources to avoid getting hit and all the bad things that result...or get hit. We are talking primarily about healing, but healing isn't the only way to address the problem. One choose to Aid Another or any other such actions to solve the problem.

Quote:
'stay here and get beat on without healing' vs. 'go to the back and avoid damage.'

I always have that choice. Your decision to heal me doesn't change that. It just so happens that for my front-liners, I believe that it's in everyone's best interest if I fight on the front-line until I am no longer deem it prudent. I may have built a character to be most effective there, and that means sacrificing the option of being entirely self-sufficient as I believe that is sub-optimal and ends up costing everyone more resources in the long run. When used effectively, I believe that I am far more efficient and cheaper to support than if I made a different set of decisions. You may not agree. Such is the nature of RPG's and decision making.

Quote:
There's no room for negotiation ("how about you guys use two charges on me for every one I use, since I'll be taking the brunt of the damage?") because you've come to the table with an all-or-nothing situation.

I've come to the table with a character that i believe to be most effective at what I want that character to do. Do I get to negotiate with the cleric who decided to channel negative energy instead of positive? No. Just because my choice may or may not be reversible does not mean I should be any more required to reverse it than anyone else.

Quote:
Are they obligated to heal?

Nobody is ever obligated to do anything. It's a choice. It's always a choice. If I want someone else to take point, then I'm going to heal them.

Quote:
I hope you don't read the above as flippant.

Since you're returned to the discussion, I have perceived all of your posts in good faith and have not perceived anything but honest discourse.

Quote:
I sit at a lot of tables where the closest we have to a healer is a Ranger or Bard (or Sorcerer) who can activate a wand. If those were the only people expected to provide healing resources, things would get ugly fast.

The majority of my games have been the exact same situations. My archery ranger will heal whoever is taking point, so long as that person is the best option we have. I don't care if they contribute. Even if it's someone who has not built their character to take point, I'll heal them without contribution. Why? Because I don't want to take point. IMO, melee is the most dangerous place to be, even for those who are built for it.

*

David Bowles wrote:
If you played with a consistent group I would 100% agree. But you can't not a priori who has what gear. It's just best to cover your behind with something like a hp battery.

I don't play with a consistent group. Nevertheless, I've yet to sit a table without everyone figuring out who is doing what and what the healing situation is prior to the start. And I've definitely played Kyra when there was no good healing option and seen other people do the same.

Silver Crusade **

N N 959 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
If you played with a consistent group I would 100% agree. But you can't not a priori who has what gear. It's just best to cover your behind with something like a hp battery.

I don't play with a consistent group. Nevertheless, I've yet to sit a table without everyone figuring out who is doing what and what the healing situation is prior to the start. And I've definitely played Kyra when there was no good healing option and seen other people do the same.

See? I hate pregens, and I'd rather spend the 2PP to be able to play who I want.

****

N N 959 wrote:
A lot of how we as humans value our choices and our options is based on how they are farmed. The choice is expend my resources to avoid getting hit and all the bad things that result...or get hit. We are talking primarily about healing, but healing isn't the only way to address the problem. One choose to Aid Another or any other such actions to solve the problem.

I think this is a vast over-simplification of a typical PFS scenario. Either your GMs are exceedingly generous with NPC tactics or your front-liners are doing a tremendous job of keeping NPCs focused on attacking them. In my experience, intelligent NPCs will often ignore front-liners in favor of taking out the healer or the squishier casters.

I don't consider my melee characters more at-risk than my other characters. I consider them less so, as they have the AC and/or HP to take a beating.

Quote:
I don't play with a consistent group. Nevertheless, I've yet to sit a table without everyone figuring out who is doing what and what the healing situation is prior to the start. And I've definitely played Kyra when there was no good healing option and seen other people do the same.

I think this is indicative of our different approaches to PFS. I'd rather do just about anything than play a pregen. I also feel that scenarios rarely need someone so hyper-specialized that they can't afford to divert some resources to be more flexible in their role and contribution to a party. Especially with the newer scenarios that tend to have more of a focus on skills and social interactions, I find that characters built to do nothing but fight spend a lot of time twiddling their thumbs. I also find that these characters will often trivialize the fights that do happen, giving the other characters in the party little opportunity to contribute in combat.

Liberty's Edge **** Venture-Captain, Tennessee—Memphis aka Thrawn007

I think the healing argument is being framed completely wrong. The economics of this game are simple. It's expendable resources vs non-expendable resources.

Expendables - Give your party a short term advantage in accomplishing the current mission, whether you use them or someone else in a party uses them. Whether it's extra healing, a potion of flying, or a key buff, expending these can some times make or break things or at least will make things easier. Any time you use an expendable, there is an opportunity cost though. It's a limited resource with a cost to replace. As a result, the more consumables you personally use, the more you stunt your long term ability to contribute to the party in future adventures.

Non-Expendables - Although they usually require more investment than expendables, these create a permanent advantages for your character (and as a result, your party) in future all adventures. Since these can be used over and over without opportunity costs (once you own it...buying it in the first place is it's own opportunity cost), it means it doesn't just help you at the current table, it will also help you at the next, and the next, and the next.

CLW wands are just one of many expendable resources. (It's also one of the cheaper resources, but one that needs to be used more often than most others.)

If the front line fighter is burning a potion of fly to take down a flying creature in return for getting a share of other people's healing stores, that helps mitigate the cost of that potion. The party is sharing the short term expendable costs whether it's healing or something else. If the fighter has buff wands for others to use on him, it's the same deal. The fighter is sharing in the expendable costs used by the party.

However, if I hear the fighter wants to mooch expendables off the party so he can get better armor and a weapon...then I don't want that fighter in my party. I'll take a less efficient fighter who will share the costs vs one that will put their long term gain ahead of the party's short term objectives, and that armor and weapons is exactly that. The armor you save up for by not buying expendables now, does me no good when I'm at a table with another party. I'm not here to invest in your welfare, and I don't care what "role" I'm playing. If people aren't going to hold up their end on expendables...I don't want them in my party, even if they are the most efficient killing machine in the whole society.

Liberty's Edge **** Venture-Captain, Tennessee—Memphis aka Thrawn007

redward wrote:


I think this is indicative of our different approaches to PFS. I'd rather do just about anything than play a pregen. I also feel that scenarios rarely need someone so hyper-specialized that they can't afford to divert some resources to be more flexible in their role and contribution to a party. Especially with the newer scenarios that tend to have more of a focus on skills and social interactions, I find that characters built to do nothing but fight spend a lot of time twiddling their thumbs. I also find that these characters will often trivialize the fights that do happen, giving the other characters in the party little opportunity to contribute in combat.

I haven't done super specialized characters before, because I hate that style of play personally, but I find flexible characters are plenty expensive to build. I know I'll never come close to getting all the items on my wishlist on any of my characters, and I do a lot of versatile generalists. I'll also say that when the tank gets swallowed by a huge dinosaur due to a high roll on round 1 of a fight, and you have to step in and tank the dinosaur along with the demons that are harassing it... then your party is very dead if you spent all your resources subsidizing the tank instead of making sure you had your own armor in place.

*

Thrawn007 wrote:
The armor you save up for by not buying expendables now, does me no good when I'm at a table with another party.

Unless you're that guy that teamed with him right after he bought that armor. Conveniently ignoring that you're benefiting from all players who supported that fighter before you teamed with him. Conveniently ignoring that he's actually saved you a bunch of money by one-shoting mooks or stone-walling the BBEG, or whatever else saved you money because that fighter was in a better position.

Quote:
I'm not here to invest in your welfare, and I don't care what "role" I'm playing.

You aren't investing in someone else's welfare. You're investing in your welfare...here and now. Don't heal the uber fighter and run the risk your end up spending more resources in the here and now.

Quote:
I think the healing argument is being framed completely wrong.

How you frame the problem influences how you perceive it. Framing the choice as your money versus someone else's will lead you down the path you're on.

****

N N 959 wrote:
Thrawn007 wrote:
The armor you save up for by not buying expendables now, does me no good when I'm at a table with another party.
Unless you're that guy that teamed with him right after he bought that armor. Conveniently ignoring that you're benefiting from all players who supported that fighter before you teamed with him. Conveniently ignoring that he's actually saved you a bunch of money by one-shoting mooks or stone-walling the BBEG, or whatever else saved you money because that fighter was in a better position.

The flip-side of this is what happens when you're instead at the table with one of the characters who had to spend their resources supporting that fighter rather than improving themselves.

It may well just be the direction of the conversation that makes it seem this way, but it comes across that in your mind there is the front-liner and then there is the rest of the party. The front-liner is the hero and everyone else is a supporting character.

Every character is more effective if they don't have to spend money on healing wands. Ranged fighters can afford more and better ammunition. Casters can raise the DC of their SoS spells. Clerics can be better combat healers (or Front-liners, or Debuffers, or whatever). I just don't see why a front-liner is a higher priority than any other character in terms of their gear.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

There's no such thing as a tank. Generally there will be multiple kinds of melee, and the heavily armored turtle has few if any mechanisms for stopping the other melee from being whaled on. Those are usually the ones that run up the biggest vet bill.


redward wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Thrawn007 wrote:
The armor you save up for by not buying expendables now, does me no good when I'm at a table with another party.
Unless you're that guy that teamed with him right after he bought that armor. Conveniently ignoring that you're benefiting from all players who supported that fighter before you teamed with him. Conveniently ignoring that he's actually saved you a bunch of money by one-shoting mooks or stone-walling the BBEG, or whatever else saved you money because that fighter was in a better position.

The flip-side of this is what happens when you're instead at the table with one of the characters who had to spend their resources supporting that fighter rather than improving themselves.

It may well just be the direction of the conversation that makes it seem this way, but it comes across that in your mind there is the front-liner and then there is the rest of the party. The front-liner is the hero and everyone else is a supporting character.

Every character is more effective if they don't have to spend money on healing wands. Ranged fighters can afford more and better ammunition. Casters can raise the DC of their SoS spells. Clerics can be better combat healers (or Front-liners, or Debuffers, or whatever). I just don't see why a front-liner is a higher priority than any other character in terms of their gear.

Yeah. That's what I've been thinking. Using your resources to heal the tank who's blocking for you, since you would have taken damage if he wasn't there makes sense.

Arguing that it's best for the tank to not have to spend on consumables so he can do his job better doesn't make sense, because it applies to everyone. Helping the fighter one-shot mooks isn't a better investment than helping the sorcerer do the same.

Liberty's Edge **** Venture-Captain, Tennessee—Memphis aka Thrawn007

N N 959 wrote:

Unless you're that guy that teamed with him right after he bought that armor. Conveniently ignoring that you're benefiting from all players who supported that fighter before you teamed with him. Conveniently ignoring that he's actually saved you a bunch of money by one-shoting mooks or stone-walling the BBEG, or whatever else saved you money because that fighter was in a better position.

So I'm buying lottery tickets, that if I feed selfish players early, I might benefit from it later...or if I don't feed the selfish player...I might benefit from having a player others foolishly fed. It's a terrible model. The only way I can guarantee resources will be at the table next time, is spending on my own long term resources. The only time subsidizing makes any sense at all is if I'm playing with a regular party and will see the benefits over time. (I'd still argue it's not a good plan though!)

To do the best thing for your character, it isn't to just win the adventure, it's to win it with the least cost to my character. If I'm spending resources to subsidize other players, I'm already failing in maximizing my own character's long term growth, and it just ends up costing parties later instead of now. (In return I likely helped out some other parties that I am not in though...so if I want to run a charity, I can consider that a win.)

Quote:
You aren't investing in someone else's welfare. You're investing in your welfare...here and now. Don't heal the uber fighter and run the risk your end up spending more resources in the here and now.

I'm investing in my short term welfare at the cost of my long term welfare. I'll be worse off in the long run if I'm buying the expendables to fund the party even if we accomplish the mission.

Quote:
How you frame the problem influences how you perceive it. Framing the choice as your money versus someone else's will lead you down the path you're on.

It is absolutely my money vs someone else's. Expendables cost money. Someone has to spend it. If I'm the one spending it, I don't have that money later. The best case for my character is to mooch all expendables off that party to maximize my own long term resources. This is exactly what you are proposing. Unfortunately, it makes everyone else at the table worse off. This is really a case of prisoner's dilemma. Your description dilemma's equivalent to lying to the police hoping that your partner will take the fall and due the jail time, letting you off, even though if you worked together, the overall group would be better off...you are choosing what is best for you, not the group.

The Exchange ****

UndeadMitch wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Regardless of others' assertions, I still maintain it is THE best use of 2PP.

Let me ask you some rhetorical questions, David.

Do you think if five characters are carrying CLWs wands, the odds of party success are significantly increased by a sixth person purchasing another wand?

So what happens when everyone thinks like that?

well... maybe the 4th person then.

I have been in the party (of 4) that only had a Rogue/Sorcerer with UMP for a healer, who "jammed" three wands, and we were on the 4th (and last) when we finished off the scenario.

****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Thrawn007 wrote:
It is absolutely my money vs someone else's. Expendables cost money. Someone has to spend it. If I'm the one spending it, I don't have that money later. The best case for my character is to mooch all expendables off that party to maximize my own long term resources. This is exactly what you are proposing. Unfortunately, it makes everyone else at the table worse off. This is really a case of prisoner's dilemma. Your description dilemma's equivalent to lying to the police hoping that your partner will take the fall and due the jail time, letting you off, even though if you worked together, the overall group would be better off...you are choosing what is best for you, not the group.

Maybe all his front-liners are named John and hail from Galt?

Liberty's Edge **** Venture-Captain, Tennessee—Memphis aka Thrawn007

As an aside to the whole CLW thing...Janira Gavix is the best tool EVER for educating everyone on the how everyone should be prepared with a CLW wand, and that after you have completed your confirmation with the society, it's likely you will have garnered enough attention within certain groups, that you might even be able to get one for free. Then OOC after the session, you can explain the prestige rules for buying items, and that especially for new players, that a CLW wand is highly suggested.

Grand Lodge * Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

N N 959 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Regardless of others' assertions, I still maintain it is THE best use of 2PP.

Let me ask you some rhetorical questions, David.

Do you think if five characters are carrying CLWs wands, the odds of party success are significantly increased by a sixth person purchasing another wand?

Let's do some simple math:

Each use of CLW wand is worth 15 gp. So if a scenario sucks up 20 CLW charges, that's 60gp per five people. If that sixth person buys a CLW wand and contributes equally, now each person has spent 50gp each.

Now me personally, I'd rather the fighter spend that 50gp on an Oil of Bless weapon so any of his crits against an evil creature are confirmed. But that's me. I know you haven't been talking about the money burden, but if someone out there would rather save the 10gp, or 20gp or 30gp (if it's 60 charges), that's their call.

If nobody had a wand of CLW in the group, then I'd agree the first person to purchase one is significantly increasing a low level party's chance of success. But each additional wand provides a diminishing benefit. After the fourth or fifth wand in the group, you have to ask yourself if it might make more sense to spend that 2 PP on something else.

Yes, I know everyone doesn't have one. But I've yet to be in group that didn't have at least four wands before 2nd level.

A few points you may not have thought of, N N 959:

1) 6 wands, when the only one who can use them in the party has to make a UMD roll, with less than a +19 in UMD, means there is a chance that he can still use one of them, still, at adventure's end.

Every time someone with a UMD score of under +19 tries to use a wand via UMD, there is a 5% chance that he will no longer be able to use that wand at all for 24 hours. And a less than 100% chance per attempt that nothing happens.

I have played in such a party, but there was only one wand available, and the UMD was only at +5. Statistically, actually, the UMDer got lucky, and got 7 charges off before hitting the 1. That was, still, less healing, overall, than the party needed, by a fair margin.

As a result of this, we failed the mission. Not enough healing to handle continuing exploring the site, and finding some of the stuff we needed to find for the mission.

2) If your front liner has a wand, which won't affect his gold (and his ability to purchase that oil of bless weapon) if he spent a (gasp!) whole 2 PP for it, then that PC can be sure that that party has some form of healing available to it besides Kyra's 5 channels (for 1d6!) and 2-3 cure light wounds spells that she might be able to cast. If she casts nothing else.

Note that, as an early expenditure, the first 2 PP, all it likely does is delay by 1 or 2 games when you have enough PP banked to afford a raise dead. And, since you now know there is a fair amount of healing available to your low level party, you can be more confident that your frontliner will be able to survive until he banks those 16 PP.

3) It is your choice, but don't expect people to be happy to see your frontliner if he proves himself unwilling to do this, as you can always have a party of frontliners, with no real divine or dedicated arcane casters.

Been there, done that. Fighter pregen, ninja pregen, magus PC, barbarian PC.

Explore. Report (if you survive to). Cooperate.

TL, DR: Everyone should have some way of either getting themselves healed, or healing the healer if he goes down.

Silver Crusade ***

On average, if your UMD bonus is +b, you can expect to get off 2(b+1) charges before rolling a "1".

The probability of getting more than m charges off before rolling a "1" is [(b+1)/(b+2)]^m.

Half of the time, you will get off no more than (log 2)/(log b+2 – log b+1) charges.

*****

The Fox wrote:

On average, if your UMD bonus is +b, you can expect to get off 2(b+1) charges before rolling a "1".

The probability of getting more than m charges off before rolling a "1" is [(b+1)/(b+2)]^m.

Half of the time, you will get off no more than (log 2)/(log b+2 – log b+1) charges.

Probably the easiest formula for a non-math person is the middle one, minorly modified:

At any given time, your chance of frying the wand before it heals you is 1/(bonus+2), unless bonus is 19 or higher, in which case you auto-succeed.

So with a +5 as in the example above, there's a 1 in 7 chance of frying the wand before each healing.

Also, I think the first formula may be off by a factor of 2. Wouldn't the sum of the expectation be a/(1-r), or in this case (b+1)/(b+2) / (1-(b+1)/(b+2)) = b+1?

*

redward wrote:


The flip-side of this is what happens when you're instead at the table with one of the characters who had to spend their resources supporting that fighter rather than improving themselves.

You aren't supporting the "fighter". You're paying for a service. That service is you don't get hit. You don't want to pay for that service. Then don't. It's your choice.

Quote:
The front-liner is the hero and everyone else is a supporting character.

If that's how you choose to view it, then I think there's more at issue here than a CLW wand. Of five characters I play, only one is a true front-liner.

Quote:
Every character is more effective if they don't have to spend money on healing wands.

I disagree. My Rangers are more effective with CLW's wands because they can use them. In fact, one Ranger has +4 UMD and picked up a wand of IH. My Investigators are more effective because they can use them and it broadens the ways in which they can assist the party. If you think your cleric is more effective not buying healing wands, that's your prerogative. If the idea of buying a healing wand is antithetical to how you want to play your negative channeling cleric, that is your prerogative.

*

I don't intend to get into the meat of this again, but I did want to comment on the whole not bringing a cure stick to the table.

I was playing at a low level table with an archery fighter I had never seen who didn't have any healing with him. After a fight, he said rather harshly, "I have taken a some decent damage." Everyone kind of set there for a second not really sure what to say. He then followed with, "I am thinking one of the many clerics at the table can fix this?" I am not really sure who he was talking about. We had a monk with a one level dip in cleric, a druid in the form of a dinosaur, me as an inquisitor, and a sorceress (his wife). The monk ended up using his wand to heal the guy for the session.

To preempt the notion that he was a new guy that didn't know any different, we were all about level 4 and this guy and his wife knew the rules better than many of the people I had played at the con with this weekend.

This guy's attitude made me want to contribute nothing to him. While part of me thought, I don't want the monk to carry all the burden of this guy's healing, I also thought, "This guy is an entitled ass, and I don't want to give him anything." Had he said something like, "I don't have a way to heal, could someone please help me?" I would have been happy to. I probably would have mentioned that wands are dirt cheap, but I would have been happy to heal him rather than making it an expectation of someone else.

*

Thrawn007 wrote:
It is absolutely my money vs someone else's.

Your free to approach the game from whatever perspective you like. But conventional thought has been wrong about a great many things.

Quote:
The best case for my character is to mooch all expendables off that party to maximize my own long term resources. This is exactly what you are proposing.

That isn't even remotely close to what I have been talking about. Intentionally trying to misrepresent my position is uncalled for and evidence of your trying to win a debate.

Shadow Lodge ***** ⦵⦵

N N 9 5 9 wrote:
You aren't supporting the "fighter". You're paying for a service. That service is you don't get hit. You don't want to pay for that service. Then don't. It's your choice.

And what makes that service so different from the others that you have to pay for it, as opposed to the privlidge of buffs, healing, skill use, problem solving, or killing the thing faster: which is how you really stop people from getting hit.

Its certainly not rarity. Melee is a dime a dozen in PFS.

Silver Crusade ***

Mark Seifter wrote:
Also, I think the first formula may be off by a factor of 2. Wouldn't the sum of the expectation be a/(1-r), or in this case (b+1)/(b+2) / (1-(b+1)/(b+2)) = b+1?

Probably.

I started with E[X] = Σ n q p^n.

*****

The Fox wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Also, I think the first formula may be off by a factor of 2. Wouldn't the sum of the expectation be a/(1-r), or in this case (b+1)/(b+2) / (1-(b+1)/(b+2)) = b+1?

Probably.

I started with E[X] = Σ n q p^n.

Yeah, I ran a few samples before I said anything, just in case. For a simple test case, +0, the expected value should definitely be 1, not 2, since you have an equal chance of successfully activating (nat 20) as you do of rolling a natural 1.

Shadow Lodge ****

Trying to look at this another way... In 4e there are fairly clear party roles. One of those roles is "Leader" and although Leader doesn't just mean "Healer" you aren't a true leader if you don't have a way to heal the other characters the bare minimum of times per encounter with your class's "_____ Word" or similar power.

In 4e organized play (and I use the term loosely) you aren't always guaranteed to have all of the roles covered. Even when someone's playing a Leader, you aren't guaranteed that your character will be on the top of their priority list, or will be in range of their powers, or that the Leader won't go down. After playing a Defender (Dwarf Earthstrength Warden, specifically) from first level, I learned that the best way to guarantee I would be healed when I needed it was to be able to provide my own healing in a pinch. I also learned that if the Leader goes down, we need something more than an untrained Heal check and crossed fingers. I started carrying potions of healing (even though they healed much less than I would normally be healed for). I multiclassed to pick up a daily healing power. I discovered class options that would allow me to take less damage and even to heal myself. It might not have been the "optimal" choice, but it kept my character alive. Just the other day, I took over 300 points of damage in one fight. That's after damage resistances, so the amount dealt to me was a good bit higher. I only have ~150 hit points and was only healed once by the cleric. If I hadn't made the choices I did, my character would have died in that fight, and many others before it.

tl;dr Anecdotal evidence that even when there are clearly defined roles, it pays to be able to heal yourself.


N N 959 wrote:


I don't play with a consistent group. Nevertheless, I've yet to sit a table without everyone figuring out who is doing what and what the healing situation is prior to the start. And I've definitely played Kyra when there was no good healing option and seen other people do the same.

Ok, Correct me if I'm wrong {although judging from your posts its probably not necessary to say that! ;) }But I read the above as, if we don't have a healer I (or someone else) will play a Kyra Pregen instead?

If so, that is NOT a valid option, you can ONLY play a Pregen if you don't have a character of appropriate level to play the game yourself. They are not to be used as anything other than a way to play in a game/tier that you would otherwise not be able to play in. (unless you want to forego a chronicle sheet). From the guide:

Quote:


You may not apply a Chronicle sheet earned with a
pregenerated character to a character that was
already at the level of the pregenerated character
or higher, as you should have used this character
for the scenario instead.

So that is in no way a valid way to avoid a lack of healer and lack of wands, so if it comes down to now no healer at table and everyone took your view and didn't buy a wand, how do you deal with it now?

****

N N 959 wrote:
You aren't supporting the "fighter". You're paying for a service. That service is you don't get hit. You don't want to pay for that service. Then don't. It's your choice

Again--in my experience--unless they're focused in maneuvers, are high enough level to have tricks like Dazing Assault, or are literally plugging a doorway, front-liners don't generally have a way to guarantee the safety of the rest of their party.

Do the intelligent NPCs you encounter tend to just hammer away at whomever is in front of them, or do they make an attempt to prioritize targets? If the latter, how are the front-liners keeping them away from the supporting characters?

Quote:
I disagree. My Rangers are more effective with CLW's wands because they can use them. In fact, one Ranger has +4 UMD and picked up a wand of IH.

A Fighter can have +4 UMD with 1 skill point and a Trait at level 1. Does that mean he's now more effective with a wand of IH because he can use it?

Quote:
My Investigators are more effective because they can use them and it broadens the ways in which they can assist the party.

As far as I know, Investigators can't use wands. They don't have the same ability to use spell trigger items that Alchemists get. Regardless, isn't something that "broadens the ways in which they can assist the party" good for every single character?

Quote:
If you think your cleric is more effective not buying healing wands, that's your prerogative. If the idea of buying a healing wand is antithetical to how you want to play your negative channeling cleric, that is your prerogative.

Of course it is. But the question I'm asking is this: is it better for the party for any of those characters to have a wand? I would say unequivocally yes. Because that is healing that is now available for the party to use should they need it. It's the same reason all my characters carry a rope. None of them are rope specialists, but they all suspect that at any given time, a rope might be a nice thing to have around. My Barbarian carries around a scroll of Unbreakable heart even though she can't use it. If someone else in the party can, she hands it to him because she knows that if she gets Confused, it could be very bad for the party.

"Because I can't use it" is a really poor excuse in a game where you are expecting to be sitting with someone else who can.

Scarab Sages ****

CathalFM wrote:
N N 959 wrote:


I don't play with a consistent group. Nevertheless, I've yet to sit a table without everyone figuring out who is doing what and what the healing situation is prior to the start. And I've definitely played Kyra when there was no good healing option and seen other people do the same.

Ok, Correct me if I'm wrong {although judging from your posts its probably not necessary to say that! ;) }But I read the above as, if we don't have a healer I (or someone else) will play a Kyra Pregen instead?

If so, that is NOT a valid option, you can ONLY play a Pregen if you don't have a character of appropriate level to play the game yourself. They are not to be used as anything other than a way to play in a game/tier that you would otherwise not be able to play in. (unless you want to forego a chronicle sheet). From the guide:

Quote:


You may not apply a Chronicle sheet earned with a
pregenerated character to a character that was
already at the level of the pregenerated character
or higher, as you should have used this character
for the scenario instead.

So that is in no way a valid way to avoid a lack of healer and lack of wands, so if it comes down to now no healer at table and everyone took your view and didn't buy a wand, how do you deal with it now?

This thread is getting even farther off topic now, but you are actually incorrect (or at least, I believe you are). The passage you are quoting isn't saying that you can't play a pregen if you have a character in-tier. It's saying if you do play a pregen, you can't apply the chronicle to a character whose level is equal to the pregen's or higher, because if you wanted to apply the credit to that character, you should have played that character. You can, however, apply the chronicle to a character whose level is less than that of the pregen's.

I don't believe the intent of the rule was to force a player to play a particular character. Nor do I think the rule says that. There are many, many reasons someone might want to play a pregen instead of one of their characters. They may have a character on hold waiting for a specific scenario (third part of a series, or just something they want to play with that character). They might have retired a character because they don't enjoy playing it anymore. They might just want to try out a high level version of a certain character class. Or, as in N N 959's case, they might play a pregen to fill a gap in the party.

The rule doesn't say anything about when you can play a pregen. It only talks about what you can do with the chronicle once you have played a pregen. I don't agree with N N 959's philosophy on wands of CLW, but in this case, he's correct. He can play Kyra whenever he wants to.


Ferious Thune wrote:
CathalFM wrote:
N N 959 wrote:


I don't play with a consistent group. Nevertheless, I've yet to sit a table without everyone figuring out who is doing what and what the healing situation is prior to the start. And I've definitely played Kyra when there was no good healing option and seen other people do the same.

Ok, Correct me if I'm wrong {although judging from your posts its probably not necessary to say that! ;) }But I read the above as, if we don't have a healer I (or someone else) will play a Kyra Pregen instead?

If so, that is NOT a valid option, you can ONLY play a Pregen if you don't have a character of appropriate level to play the game yourself. They are not to be used as anything other than a way to play in a game/tier that you would otherwise not be able to play in. (unless you want to forego a chronicle sheet). From the guide:

Quote:


You may not apply a Chronicle sheet earned with a
pregenerated character to a character that was
already at the level of the pregenerated character
or higher, as you should have used this character
for the scenario instead.

So that is in no way a valid way to avoid a lack of healer and lack of wands, so if it comes down to now no healer at table and everyone took your view and didn't buy a wand, how do you deal with it now?

This thread is getting even farther off topic now, but you are actually incorrect (or at least, I believe you are). The passage you are quoting isn't saying that you can't play a pregen if you have a character in-tier. It's saying if you do play a pregen, you can't apply the chronicle to a character whose level is equal to the pregen's or higher, because if you wanted to apply the credit to that character, you should have played that character. You can, however, apply the chronicle to a character whose level is less than that of the pregen's.

I don't believe the intent of the rule was to force a player to play a particular character. Nor do I think the rule says that. There...

I dunno, the "Should have played that character instead" bit to me honestly seems that the RAI here is "If you have a legal character you should be playing it, not a pregen".

And although this only refers to adventure paths and modules the following I would have thought applied to scenarios too:

"For modules and Adventure Path content below 9th level,
if you do not have a character in the correct level range,
you may use a Pathfinder Society pregenerated character"

Again, I could be wrong and am sorry for dragging the discussion off course if so.

Liberty's Edge ***** Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Chester aka Paz

CathalFM wrote:
I dunno, the "Should have played that character instead" bit to me honestly seems that the RAI here is "If you have a legal character you should be playing it, not a pregen".

The rule means that if you have a level 7.2 wizard, you can't play a level 7 pregen instead and apply credit to your wizard as a zero-risk option to level them up.

However, if you wanted to play that wizard in the tier 3-7 scenario in the next slot, or realised the rest of the party were all playing wizards, or hadn't got round to levelling your wizard PC up properly since applying a load of GM credit etc. then you can choose to play a pregen and assign the credit to a lower-level character, e.g. your 5th-level gunslinger or your 1st-level magus.

Scarab Sages ****

Quote:

You may not apply a Chronicle sheet earned with a

pregenerated character to a character that was
already at the level of the pregenerated character
or higher
, as you should have used this character
for the scenario instead.

The text within the sentence tells you what "as you should have used this character for the scenario instead" is referring to. It does not say you may not play a pregenerated character. It says you may not "apply a Chronicle sheet earned with a pregenerated character." You can't earn a chronicle sheet with a pregenerated character unless you play a pregenerated character. If you read the whole section, you'll see that it is outlining how to apply the chronicle. Either a 1st level pregen chronicle to a 1st level PC, or a non-1st-level chronicle to a PC that is lower level than the pregen and hold the chronicle, but not to a PC that is equal or higher level. Or, reduce the gold to 500 and apply it to a new character.

It's true that there is a post from Mike Brock from 2012 stating what you say, but he backed off it at some point. I can't find that post, but I think I understand the reasons why. If what you say is true, that you must play your character if it is legal for the scenario, then someone with only a level 1 character who sits down at a subtler 4-5 table in a tier 1-5 scenario would be forced to play up with their level 1 instead of playing a level 4 pregen. A person with a level 3 would be forced to play up into 6-7 in a 3-7 instead of a level 7 pregen. And, possibly worst of all, someone who wasn't planning to play, and thus didn't bring their character sheets, wouldn't be allowed to play at all.

THIS POST is the closest I could find to Mike acknowledging changing his mind. It's a post from him in 2013 suggesting to a player that they play a pregen instead of their own character. Granted, it's when replaying for no credit, but if you're allowed to play a pregen in that situation, why wouldn't you be allowed to in a normal situation? The only thing you can't do is take that 7th level pregen chronicle and apply it to a 7th level or higher character. You could still apply it to a 6th level or lower character, though.

THIS POST references Mike's backing off the hard restriction.


Ok, Fair enough, I am not 100% convinced on the subject, (but really appreciate your input and your arguments are both sound) but I didnt intend to derail this thread and have no intentions of doing so if I can help it.

:)

Grand Lodge * Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

N N 959 wrote:
redward wrote:


The flip-side of this is what happens when you're instead at the table with one of the characters who had to spend their resources supporting that fighter rather than improving themselves.
You aren't supporting the "fighter". You're paying for a service. That service is you don't get hit. You don't want to pay for that service. Then don't. It's your choice.

And, tell me something, wouldn't you then consider the "fighter" having a wand of CLW or IH, then, the way he is then paying for the service of getting healing, a bless or other buff, then?

And, as redward mentioned, it is rare that even my backliners have fully received the so-called service of not taking damage during combat.

Whether it is from that 4th enemy who walks right on by the "fighter" because earlier enemies have got him caged/knocked out/out of AoOs, or an archer or caster that the "fighter" was not able, whether through bad tactics, or just plain ignorance, to get close enough to to interdict, or because the "fighter" has Perception so bad he is flatfooted during the surprise round, and bypassed by the higher Initiative enemies, I find better "service" from not dumping Con, having some it points and healing of my own, and the ability to handle melee combat in some fashion as a last resort.

Idiot Fighter:
Note: This is not a hypothetical situation, I have played in this scenario with this fighter with the stated result.

8th level fighter, set as a tank, high Con, low Str & Dex, along with dumping Wisdom. Bodyguard family of feats, elemental gems to provide the offense his build lacks, but a low (+1, maybe?) Will save, and no clear spindle Ioun stone in a wayfinder.

Scenario puts us up against a succubus. She casts Dominate Person on this Fighter. He, to put it frankly, fails his Will save (I believe he needs a nat 20 to succeed).

Thanks to this fighter, the party wound up spending a lot of resources to recover from the near-TPK he caused. And we were lucky that he was not the only survivor.

Can we say, not fun? Not intelligent? He didn't get the resources he could have purchased to support his build, and instead, became a threat to his allies. And, since that fighter still has not purchased said Ioun stone, is still at risk at causing both extreme resource pit, and causing mission failure.

The Exchange ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Let's try this a different way.

I'm putting together a game, and looking at who to invite to play

So, the "team" of Pathfinders are orgainizing, each person trying out for one of those limited "first string" slots. After all, we only have so many seats at the table. Each PC will bring something to the table they were good at... and a lot of extra things too.

So, which Pathfinder are we going to accept in our team?

Bob La Feet - Barbarian "Glass Cannon" who prides himself in putting down the monsters in 3 rounds.... and relies on the rest of the team to heal him up?

Jo La Feet - Barbarian "Glass Cannon" who prides herself in putting down the monsters in 3 rounds.... and has a wand of CLW? (and 2 PP less).

Everything else the same...

Which one are we going to want on our team? Which one do I invite to play?

The guy who we have to "pay with healing" or the guy who "pays his own way"?

and I am not even going to point out that the guy with the wand seems to me to be more of a "team player" and less of a "in this for himself" kind of guy. And I like to play with fellow adventurers on my team, not with employees I have to pay to be there.

Liberty's Edge **** Venture-Captain, Tennessee—Memphis aka Thrawn007

kinevon wrote:


** spoiler omitted **...

I actually saw a situation almost exactly like that happen Saturday night, when the super-optimized "tank" got dominated and turned the ridiculous amount of damage output on the rest of the party. Someone ran away to avoid a TPK, but it was costly.

The Exchange ****

Thrawn007 wrote:
kinevon wrote:


** spoiler omitted **...

I actually saw a situation almost exactly like that happen Saturday night, when the super-optimized "tank" got dominated and turned the ridiculous amount of damage output on the rest of the party. Someone ran away to avoid a TPK, but it was costly.

yeah, I have several PCs who carry wands of prod. evil just for this - but now that I have found the spell suppress charms and comp. I often take that.

Silver Crusade *****

TriOmegaZero wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:
So what happens when everyone thinks like that?
Do you not check wands at character introduction? Because one of the standard questions I ask is "Does someone need to pick up a wand for this scenario?"

I make sure my characters can at least provide their own healing, and I check to make sure that if I can't activate my wand, someone else can. And to be fair, I've forgotten to do a wand check before, only to discover that the healing wand I had with me was expended. Luckily, someone else was willing to help me out with a few charges off of their wand, but I still felt like a mooch for using up other people's resources. And you know what I did after that scenario? I bought a wand. And you know what I haven't forgotten to do since? Check my wand for charges and see if someone can activate it. In fact, now most of my characters have both a wand of CLW and IH so I can help other and make it easier for others to help me.

I played in a game a week ago where if my Ninja didn't have a wand and UMD, my party would have had to go through the scenario with whatever potions they could scrounge from the bad guys. I didn't mind burning a bunch of charges off my wand, four of the people were playing 0 exp characters. The last character, the only other person to be able to own a wand, also brought his own wand.

I think Pathfinders should be prepared, and the attitude of "I'm the fighter, I don't need to pay for my healing" is the epitome of being unprepared. People with that sort of attitude are basically coercing the party into paying for their healing. Which is thoughtless at best, reckless at worst, and either way is a jerk move, in my opinion.

Edit: Just saw Kinevon's last post. While I think people should be able to pay for their own healing, expecting someone to pay 4K for a Clear Spindle Ioun Stone is a bit much. There is a pretty sizable difference between 2 PP and 4K. Though to be fair, if I were that fighter after that scenario I would at least have springed for a wand or some potions of prot evil.

Scarab Sages ****

I got a great idea... why do we all just provide for the OTHER players healing?

So, when I use wand charges (or spells/potions/Channels/skills) to heal up the Tank, the Tank needs to provide some way to heal my guy up too... so I guess he needs to bring a SOME sort of healing to the table right? Turn about is fair play...

*

redward wrote:
Do the intelligent NPCs you encounter tend to just hammer away at whomever is in front of them, or do they make an attempt to prioritize targets? If the latter, how are the front-liners keeping them away from the supporting characters?

I've yet to play in a scenario where BBEGs or LT's went after casters. Rarely have casters done much to draw attention by way of damage or control. Tholrist was not killed by a caster. Ghalcor was not killed by a caster. We didn't keep the Shadow Demon at bay with a caster. The megalodon in Oparra was not stopped by a caster.

Every major battle I've been, it's been about doing damage and we've needed damage dealers in melee in the absence of having a gunslinger or my archery ranger. But the latter two are enabled by someone standing between them and NPCs.

Quote:
A Fighter can have +4 UMD with 1 skill point and a Trait at level 1. Does that mean he's now more effective with a wand of IH because he can use it?

That's for the person playing the fighter to decide. The person playing the fighter gets to decide what they want their character to be and how they want to play that character, just as the battle cleric gets to decide if they want to channel positive or negative energy.

Quote:
As far as I know, Investigators can't use wands.

They can with a high UMD.

Quote:
But the question I'm asking is this: is it better for the party for any of those characters to have a wand? I would say unequivocally yes.

That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. I think there are a whole lot of build decisions that are unequivocally not in a party's best interest. Yet, each person is free to play the character they want to play, no matter how sub-optimal that character may be. The fact that you believe a fighter is less valuable without a wand doesn't make it any more true than someone believing a cleric is less valuable who can't channel positive energy. It's an opinion and nothing more. If popularity made something true, then the world would be flat and the sun would revolve around the earth.

Silver Crusade **

" It's an opinion and nothing more"

Not exactly true, I think. There are a lot more ways to take away hps than to give them back. A negative channeling cleric is basically doing the same thing as an evocation wizard. I think that factoring in common combat circumstances, positive channeling is far more powerful than negative channeling.

If you look at the expense of non-CLW wand options for restoring hps, then the superiority of this option becomes clear to me.

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

nosig wrote:
Which one are we going to want on our team? Which one do I invite to play?

Whichever one you want.

UndeadMitch wrote:

I make sure my characters can at least provide their own healing, and I check to make sure that if I can't activate my wand, someone else can. And to be fair, I've forgotten to do a wand check before, only to discover that the healing wand I had with me was expended. Luckily, someone else was willing to help me out with a few charges off of their wand, but I still felt like a mooch for using up other people's resources. And you know what I did after that scenario? I bought a wand. And you know what I haven't forgotten to do since? Check my wand for charges and see if someone can activate it. In fact, now most of my characters have both a wand of CLW and IH so I can help other and make it easier for others to help me.

To answer your question more clearly, when everyone at the party thinks otherwise, they get to discuss who will pay for a wand when they get to the table. If they fail to check for wands, they get what they deserve. Which might be some character deaths, or it might be a successful scenario where no one dies thanks to strong characters that don't need to heal up between fights.

*****

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

In my Eyes of the Ten group we defeated the final boss with no casualties in part because of a caster making it possible for the damage to hit the boss. It was also the casters who did the majority of the tanking.

In my Siege of the Diamond City seeker group we were only able to defeat the biggest nastiest mythic creature because of the casters, and some hella lucky rolls.

N N 959 you have been amazingly fortunate that monsters have been behaving the way you want them to.

In MOST scenarios I see enemies going after casters because they drop faster and are often crucial to the melee's success.

Every member should be able to contribute. And every member should be willing to bear the cost of consumables. If I ever again play with a player who is not willing to provide the most basic of consumables then I will not use any of mine for them. There is also a decent chance I wont renewable resources either.

301 to 350 of 396 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild / New Rule Proposal: Consumable Reimbursement All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.