New Rule Proposal: Consumable Reimbursement


Pathfinder Society

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

nosig wrote:
Let's try this a different way.

You're trotting out a bogus comparison by pretending the guy with CLW is no different than the guy without. Let's try the guy with three doses of Silver Sheen vs the guy with CLW and you're heading into Hell.

The majority of this attitude in this thread is dependent upon the illusion that the CLW wand is free and that there is no substantive difference in someone who expends the money to buy one and one who doesn't. That assumption is false. Demonstrably false. The only question is to what degree and we can't answer that here. So many of you form the opinion that the guy with the CLW wand is always superior in value. I disagree. And no one here has provided any statistical proof to the contrary. Anecdotes only discount the absolutes.

There is no one strategy that is superior in all circumstances. Success/effectiveness in an RPG is context dependent. That leaves you with trying to argue that someone who doesn't buy a CLW wand is a "jerk" or being a "dick" because they don't subscribe to your value system. Nothing could be more anti-social and anti-Society than oppressing people because they don't believe what you believe (actually, the Society probably does do that).


Mahtobedis wrote:

In my Eyes of the Ten group ***

In my Siege of the Diamond City seeker group ***

The power curve for casters is non-linear as they level up. And let's be clear, I am not saying casters were not integral to the success of the scenario, I'm saying they didn't get targeted. When you hit the BBEG with a Slumber Hex, he's not going to attack the caster.

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

If I were playing an intelligent NPC, I would certainly be concerned about them. And yet, most GMs always seem to find an excuse to attack the guy with the most HPs and highest AC.

Quote:
Every member should be able to contribute.

That's right. And that member gets to decide in what way they think the are best accomplishing it, just as they get to decide how they want to build their character.

Silver Crusade 5/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
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.

Fair enough, I agree with that. I just didn't catch your meaning at first, thanks for clarifying that for me.

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

It depends on which person I have more fun gaming with.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

I can be pretty opaque at times, it is true. :)

Silver Crusade 5/5

Meh, I'm pretty good at missing people's points myself. :)

Silver Crusade

"And that member gets to decide in what way they think the are best accomplishing it"

Yeah, and sometimes people are wrong. I think it is a bad decision to not get at least one CLW wand in your career.

4/5

N N 959 wrote:

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.

This helps me understand why we're coming to the table with different expectations.

Silver Crusade

redward wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

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.

This helps me understand why we're coming to the table with different expectations.

Yeah..... I've seen a lot of casters get pancaked by smart NPCs.


David Bowles wrote:
I think it is a bad decision to not get at least one CLW wand in your career.

Really?

; )

Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa aka Mistwalker

N N 959 wrote:
nosig wrote:
Let's try this a different way.
You're trotting out a bogus comparison by pretending the guy with CLW is no different than the guy without. Let's try the guy with three doses of Silver Sheen vs the guy with CLW and you're heading into Hell.

You never seem to address the question about spending PP to get that wand of CLW (or any other wand). Your front liner can spend all their gold on weapons and armor, and still have a wand. Why are you opposed to that?

Your examples all deal with comparing potions to potions, when that isn't the argument that most seem to be bringing forward. Why is that? And can you bring forward arguments that compare 2 PP expenditures?

Also, you have stated that if your front liner didn't get healed by the party, that they would go to the back of the group and provide support (sling, as it is free, I think was mentioned). If your character is now providing support functions, then doesn't that mean (by your argument) that they should be providing the healing - which they do how if they don't have a wand?

You have also stated that if the rogue is the one leading, due to traps and such, that you would gladly contribute to their healing. How is your front liner doing that when they don't have a wand?

My questions are not meant to be an attack on you, but an effort in understanding your thought process, as I have one much closer to most of the posters in this thread (well, on wands of CLWs anyways).

Silver Crusade

Yes, really. Making a different choice for the sake of being different does not make that choice a better choice. Just different. CLW wand are really quite remarkable since the need to regain hps is ubiquitous in the game.

The Exchange 5/5

redward wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

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.

This helps me understand why we're coming to the table with different expectations.

I have played in a number of PFS scenarios where the BBE tactics state that the bad guys single out casters - "lightly armored individuals" - "PC casting spells" - "PCs wearing religious symbols, or clearly divine spellcasters"... In fact, they are singled out more often than other types.

I have played (and play) casters designed to be "drawing attention" to themselves - I in fact currently have two Street Performer Bards that can make any (or several) other PC "invisible" in the midst of combat (and I often use this on the party tank) - by drawing attention to her/him self. That's what the 1st level Bard power "disappearing act" DOES.

I regularly have PCs with hats of disguise to appear to be armored (to avoid the monsters attacks) or un-armored (to "draw fire"). With good judges it makes a difference (some just shot at the un-armored guys anyway).

I have played in many games where there is no damage dealing melee type in the group... and in fact casters are some of the best damage dealers in the game....

but this is all depenant on who you have at the table. And perhaps who is avoiding your table...

Paizo Employee 5/5

Mahtobedis wrote:
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.

I took a bunch of hits too, and I think I took all the hits from the final boss and managed to stay standing (barely)! Strangely, Kadrim, the only melee in our quartet, may have been attacked the fewest times in the series. But he made up for it by taking enormous amounts of punishment in...well, just about every other adventure I can remember, including that diamond siege thing. No disagreement on you and Fizzle being crucial to our success, though if anything, I would say Wrath of the Accursed was where you saved all our bacons twice by getting me to where I could shoot them, saving me maybe two or three rounds in each battle during which the enemy's next spells would have certainly killed at least Amiri.

Then again, I was the monk carrying around that scroll of breath of life as the most able person to activate it (+24 UMD go!), so we weren't exactly your standard group!

Scarab Sages 5/5

Fasch wrote:
Mahtobedis wrote:
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.

I took a bunch of hits too, and I think I took all the hits from the final boss and managed to stay standing (barely)! Strangely, Kadrim, the only melee in our quartet, may have been attacked the fewest times in the series. But he made up for it by taking enormous amounts of punishment in...well, just about every other adventure I can remember, including that diamond siege thing. No disagreement on you and Fizzle being crucial to our success, though if anything, I would say Wrath of the Accursed was where you saved all our bacons twice by getting me to where I could shoot them, saving me maybe two or three rounds in each battle during which the enemy's next spells would have certainly killed at least Amiri.

Then again, I was the monk carrying around that scroll of breath of life as the most able person to activate it (+24 UMD go!), so we weren't exactly your standard group!

I get BoL as a 4th level Extract - which I put in poisoners gloves and hand off to two of the other PCs (like the Barbarian in the party). It's something else to see the party barbarian charge across the battlefield and punch a Breath of Life into someone that just went down.


Mistwalker wrote:
You never seem to address the question about spending PP to get that wand of CLW (or any other wand).

I have addressed the question and so hasTriOz, you've just ignored the answers.

Quote:
Your front liner can spend all their gold on weapons and armor, and still have a wand. Why are you opposed to that?

2PP can be used by tons of things beyond wands. In addition, I cannot count on having a cleric to cure a condition or expect the party to chip in to cure a condition. I've seen characters take conditions for the team and no one chipped in to cure it.

Quote:
And can you bring forward arguments that compare 2 PP expenditures?

I already have. But the truths is no matter what I say, it will be discounted. People have made up their mind that 2 PP on a wand is what everyone should spend their Prestige on and nothing, not even statistics is going to change that opinion.

Quote:
If your character is now providing support functions, then doesn't that mean (by your argument) that they should be providing the healing - which they do how if they don't have a wand?

If I used the specific term "healing" I was referring to support in general. I consistently have not limited this discussion to healing and healing alone. And let's not pretend that everyone who stands in the back contributes to healing/support.

Quote:

I have one much closer to most of the posters in this thread (well, on wands of CLWs anyways).

What is exceedingly obvious about this topic every time I've seen it come up is that it's not a question of effectiveness. As one poster said, he doesn't care if the non-CLW-W wand guy is more effective. That sentiment and outrage is a result of non-conformity. You have a community of posters in this thread who want people to conform to what they believe are the proper values. The same people who decry criticism of negative channeling clerics spew venom and vitriol at someone who would dare not to carry a wand because it doesn't fit their character image.

Many (though not all) frame the issue as one of greed or selfishness. Others refuse to believe that a CLW wand isn't always the best option. <shrug>

I haven't had a problem playing my front-liner who doesn't carry a wand or stock potions. Probably because most of the people I play with don't read the forums and haven't been indoctrinated that doing so is wrongbadfunselfish. They see a character who is effective and they suport that character as best they can.

I don't think I have much more to contribute on this topic. What I think or how I view the trade-offs is hardly worth pages and pages of debate. If anyone thinks their choice is consumable is superior, I lack any statistical proof to say otherwise. But I reserve the right to play a character that I think is fun to play and is best able to contribute. You may not agree, but if we all had to agree on what everyone else should play, there would be very few games.

Silver Crusade

Fair enough. But I've been rocking the CLW wand scheme since 3.0 dropped. No brainwashing necessary. Just teh maths.

" In addition, I cannot count on having a cleric to cure a condition or expect the party to chip in to cure a condition. "

Conditions are way more rare than hp removal. Just saying.

" not even statistics is going to change that opinion."

So you're claiming that hp removal is not the most statistically likely PC malady to occur?

I'm not even outraged and I don't care about non-conformity. I just think that every player should hedge their bets on each PC. I guess, yeah, you can check with every table before you start and make sure that everyone ELSE has down-time healing covered. I simply don't understand why you wouldn't want a CLW wand. Just in case.

4/5

N N 959 wrote:
The same people who decry criticism of negative channeling clerics spew venom and vitriol at someone who would dare not to carry a wand because it doesn't fit their character image.

I don't care if you don't have a wand. I do care if you don't have a wand and ask others to use their charges on you, just as I would care if you showed up with a bow but no arrows and expected the rest of your party to provide them ("I'm a melee guy, if you want me to shoot the flying thing, support me some arrows").

To me, it makes sense to prepare for eventualities, and it seems foolish to not prepare for certainties. I consider losing at least a handful of hit points each scenario to be fairly close to a certainty. Especially if I plan to be going toe-to-toe with NPCs.

My mindset for my characters is "I may get a disease. I should buy a potion of Remove Disease," not "I may get a disease, I hope there's someone who can remove it for me, but if not, I'll just play Kyra."

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

N N 959 wrote:
And no one here has provided any statistical proof to the contrary

Deciding that you should use statistics to make a values decision is like insisting you won't believe a doctor is good until you see their value in the Kelly blue book.


David Bowles wrote:
I simply don't understand why you wouldn't want a CLW wand. Just in case.

Because I team with a party of Druids whose animal companions kill everything without so much as a scratch.

;)


redward wrote:

My mindset for my characters is "I may get a disease. I should buy a potion of Remove Disease," not "I may get a disease, I hope there's someone who can remove it for me, but if not, I'll just play Kyra."

That is not my mindset. Nor does it represent my mindset.

4/5

N N 959 wrote:
That is not my mindset. Nor does it represent my mindset.

My apologies, then. This would be the source of my confusion on that (I was using Remove Disease as a placeholder for any condition removal, including loss of hit points).

N N 959 wrote:

And I've definitely played Kyra when there was no good healing option and seen other people do the same.

Venture-Agent, Canada—Ontario—Ottawa aka Mistwalker

2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
You never seem to address the question about spending PP to get that wand of CLW (or any other wand).

I have addressed the question and so hasTriOz, you've just ignored the answers.

and other responses.

I think that I am going to let any kind of discussion on this topic with you drop, as you seem to be refusing to answer questions and insult those that don't agree with you.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Captain, Tennessee—Memphis aka Thrawn007

N N 959 wrote:


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

If I were playing an intelligent NPC, I would certainly be concerned about them. And yet, most GMs always seem to find an excuse to attack the guy with the most HPs and highest AC.

This is surprising to me. I don't have any tanks among my characters. I'm attacked quite often. Mindless undead? They'll hit who's closest. But for more intelligent foes, your GM's are likely not running things properly, especially since I know as a GM, there are a number of cases where the module's tactics specifically have you gank the caster. (I've been on the receiving end of those tactics as well recently, where my sorcerer ate the arrows from all of the enemy archers during an ambush, because he didn't look like a tank...the tank was simply ignored. Guess what...it was right there in the encounter tactics that it should be played that way...not a GM being mean.)

Silver Crusade

N N 959 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I simply don't understand why you wouldn't want a CLW wand. Just in case.

Because I team with a party of Druids whose animal companions kill everything without so much as a scratch.

;)

Why bother with equipment at all in that case? Bring a laptop to the table and play Starcraft while the druids do their druid thing.

Sovereign Court

Mistwalker wrote:

I think that I am going to let any kind of discussion on this topic with you drop, as you seem to be refusing to answer questions and insult those that don't agree with you.

I did that when this happened.

N N 959 wrote:
Acedio wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
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.

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.

It's just not a productive use of time debating, and it's just completely derailing this topic. He's not really reading the responses, just making assumptions about the content.

There's clearly some agenda he's operating on, and some set of likely poor assumptions that his logic is based upon (see post about him claiming that casters never get hit). We're probably not going to change it. It's been like 5 pages already.

And really, what value do we get in proving that he's wrong? Very little. Would not mind getting back onto the OPs original topic and moving on from convincing N N 595 that people should bring their own CLW wands.

Shadow Lodge

nosig wrote:


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...

But everything else is not the same. What did Bob La Feet spend those same two prestige on? If it was a Darkwood Composite Longbow so that he has a ranged option, I might want him instead. It's great for one character to buy a wand. It's not so great for all six to have a wand when some of them could instead have an oil of daylight, or a potion of fly, or a wand of bless, or whatever. The argument for providing your own healing starts to break down when you can hand pick a group.

The Exchange 5/5

Mystic Lemur wrote:
nosig wrote:


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...

But everything else is not the same. What did Bob La Feet spend those same two prestige on? If it was a Darkwood Composite Longbow so that he has a ranged option, I might want him instead. It's great for one character to buy a wand. It's not so great for all six to have a wand when some of them could instead have an oil of daylight, or a potion of fly, or a wand of bless, or whatever. The argument for providing your own healing starts to break down when you can hand pick a group.

the rest of my post that was trimmed addressed this...

"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. "

In the example given, the only difference between the two players was:

One has a wand of CLW.
One has 2 PP.

The difference that this is trying to show is, (IMHO)

Jo is more of a team player, as she has shown she is prepared to share in party healing.
Bob expects to be supported, he is more of a hireling, as he is expecting "pay with healing".

So, when I sit down at your table, I am going to try to be more like Jo (support the group) so that the other players are happy to see me there, and will remember me next time they are putting a group together.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

The thing being, the guy with 2 PP can still buy something. The guy with a wand can't.

You get to decide which is the better option.

The Exchange 5/5

Mystic Lemur wrote:
nosig wrote:


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...

But everything else is not the same. What did Bob La Feet spend those same two prestige on? If it was a Darkwood Composite Longbow so that he has a ranged option, I might want him instead. It's great for one character to buy a wand. It's not so great for all six to have a wand when some of them could instead have an oil of daylight, or a potion of fly, or a wand of bless, or whatever. The argument for providing your own healing starts to break down when you can hand pick a group.

In the example given, it was clearly stated that Bob La Feet didn't spend them on anything ("Everything else the same") - perhaps he is saving them for later, in case he needs a raise dead?

Heck - if my Alchemist needs to burn changes on his wand to heal someone, he has less resources to create the Anti-toxins, etc. that he hands out like candy. He is less likely to prepare the Fly extract to hand to the fighter (that he normally does) because he is more likely to need it as a CSW extract (he can swap them). We can be at this all day. That's why I boiled this down to it's simplest form.

We have one seat open.

It's down to two choices -

Bob & Jo.

They both have the exact same PC - "...everything else the same..." - except Jo has a Wand of CLW and Bob has 2 more PP.

which do we pick?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Whichever one you want.

The Exchange 5/5

TOZ wrote:

The thing being, the guy with 2 PP can still buy something. The guy with a wand can't.

You get to decide which is the better option.

Agreed! and that sort of makes sense.

Is Bob likely to buy something that will help ME? He hasn't before now. If past performance is any indication, Bob will be expecting me to spend my resources on him, to keep him in the fight....

Not to say he is, but (IMHO) Bob looks to either be un-prepared (he came to a game with not healing) or he's expecting to be supported (a mooch).

The Exchange 5/5

TOZ wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Whichever one you want.

yep! again right.

And I want the one that is most likely a team player. And (IMHO) it appears that that is Jo, the one that spent resources to support the party... and does not seem to be expecting to get paid for being here.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

There really isn't a 'right' answer, because we are talking about personal preferences.

The Exchange 5/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
There really isn't a 'right' answer, because we are talking about personal preferences.

right.

so, "everything else the same",

which would you prefer to fill the seat?

The team player or the paid hireling?

Shadow Lodge 5/5

nosig wrote:
The team player or the paid hireling?

Whoever shows up.

The Exchange 5/5

TOZ wrote:
nosig wrote:
The team player or the paid hireling?
Whoever shows up.

(clearly we can be at this all day)

the one that shows up will be the one you invite.

which one will that be?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

nosig wrote:
(clearly we can be at this all day)

Well yeah, because you're trying to make this about the cure wand when the fact the player isn't a team player is far more relevant.

If I were playing Bonekeep, I'd probably invite the hireling for a better chance at survival. If I were playing The Stolen Heir, I'd invite the team player for hopefully a more social table.


Mistwalker wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
You never seem to address the question about spending PP to get that wand of CLW (or any other wand).

I have addressed the question and so hasTriOz, you've just ignored the answers.

and other responses.

I think that I am going to let any kind of discussion on this topic with you drop, as you seem to be refusing to answer questions and insult those that don't agree with you.

Your questions have been answered or the answers are self-evident. I'm sorry you don't like that answer or don't find it satisfying. I haven't insulted anyone and certainly not you. In fact, I've been extremely tolerant of people doing nothing but passing judgment and making inflammatory accusations about what I am advocating or how I am not a team player because one of my characters won't buy a wand.

But yes, if your goal is to argue with me about how anything I spend 2 PP on isn't more valuable than a CLW wand, there is no point in continuing a discussion.

Sovereign Court

N N 959 wrote:
In fact, I've been extremely tolerant of people doing nothing but passing judgment and making inflammatory accusations about what I am advocating or how I am not a team player because one of my characters won't buy a wand.

The people who have made a post expressly for the purpose of saying that they're done arguing with you disagree. Refer to the topic about the black dragon skeleton for unrelated but similar details.

Quote:
But yes, if your goal is to argue with me about how anything I spend 2 PP on isn't more valuable than a CLW wand, there is no point in continuing a discussion.

Fully agreed. Not productive for any body in any way, much less for this topic. It's a cultural thing. If your group doesn't want to do that, power to you. And the best thing is, that such a discussion is not the point of this topic.


Acedio wrote:
Refer to the topic about the black dragon skeleton for unrelated but similar details.

I'm sorry it was me who figured out how to rule the world by hoarding pebbles from one scenario to the next. I'll let you be mayor of Rivenrake Island if you kneel before Zod.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hasn't this thread drifted off course far enough at this point? There are already many threads on whether or not someone should buy their own wand of CLW.

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

nosig wrote:
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.

Well, our party consisted of the fighter I mentioned in the spoiler, my fighter who is a high Dex, low damage, CM type; a rogue/bard who is far form optimized, and is known as the consumables expert, meaning he has somehwere around 20 potions of CLW, potions of various other stuff, etc., and spent much more than 10% on consumables, "A potion for every need.", which is fine, but he also died twice in the course of a single convention.

I don't remember who the fourth PC was, but I remember that my PC was the only one who made a Fort save in a different part of the scenario, and therefore was teh only one alive to fight the dream demon... We missed that potential good result. Sigh. I don't recall as we had much spellcasting inour party...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elbedor wrote:
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.

Right, I know it's not legal now - but isn't it a very simple proposal to make it a legal option?

Especially if many GMs are already allowing it.

Shadow Lodge

nosig wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
There really isn't a 'right' answer, because we are talking about personal preferences.

right.

so, "everything else the same",

which would you prefer to fill the seat?

The team player or the paid hireling?

I reject your false dichotomy. Your "team player" brings nothing to the group that the group doesn't already have. "Oh, another cure wand. Add it to the pile." The marginal benefit of one more cure wand in a hand picked group is much less that the marginal benefit of, well, anything else really. I say again, I'd rather take the barbarian with a ranged option or a potion of fly than a sixth CLW wand.

You have gotten so focused on this **** wand, and the idea that not having one means you are not a "team player" that you forget I was originally on your side. I do think every character should have a way to heal him or herself. I do think every character should be somewhat self sufficient, because you cannot guarantee that someone else will be able to fill the role you lack. Your example is far beyond that. In a hand picked group, redundancy is, well, redundant.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dude, you need to calm down. You've been going HAM on the forums the last couple of days. Relax.

Also, we need to stop derailing the topic. Seriously. Who cares if another group doesn't encourage purchasing of CLW wands? It's not relevant to a reimbursement option. Why not continue the argument in a thread where it is actually relevant.


The Fox wrote:
Hasn't this thread drifted off course far enough at this point? There are already many threads on whether or not someone should buy their own wand of CLW.
Acedio wrote:
Also, we need to stop derailing the topic. Seriously. Who cares if another group doesn't encourage purchasing of CLW wands? It's not relevant to a reimbursement option. Why not continue the argument in a thread where it is actually relevant.

I have to say the thread has really derailed but oddly I'm a little happy it has, it shows not just that there are very different opinions on consumables,their use and who should bear the burden, but also shows that those who feel differently tend to feel rather strongly about it.

Yes it really derailed things, but at the same time is this just a hint of the type of bad blood that could arise if we ruled something in that the players can all decided whether to reimburse a player at the end or not?

I am still in favour of the method of reimbursement that was proposed half way through whereby if you want to your character can purchase something you used/borrowed from another character. (Here borrow my scroll. Oh thanks i'll get you a new one in the next town), but beyond that I genuinely think you risk social outcasting, especially if you are doing shared party reimbursements (Ok guys lets all chip in, except Joe, because he's a ****, eh I mean he didnt want to).

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

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society