New Rule Proposal: Consumable Reimbursement


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 396 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 28 people marked this as a favorite.

As the development team prepares version 6 of our beloved guide, I thought that this would be a good opportunity to open a discussion on a rule that I have long wished was in place: a provision allowing party members to reimburse each other for expensive consumables used during the course of an adventure.

The problem:
As the game stands right now, there is little incentive for players to purchase and use often-necessary consumables, such as Oil of Daylight, Scroll of Breath of Life, Oil of Glitterdust, and so-on. The cost of these consumables can be significantly higher than the payout of some low-level adventures, yet are truly life-savers.

As a campaign, we want to encourage our players to cooperate with each other and be prepared for odd things. My favorite times at the table are when I present a tricky problem, and a player pulls out something creative that fits the situation perfectly. It's good for everybody involved, but these things can cause a significant hit to your WBL. Players who are constantly prepared for everything may find themselves unable to purchase more expensive equipment on down the road, or at the very least may feel a bit discouraged by the fact that they are always the one who has to pay for daylight. In one 5-9 scenario, I saw a particular PC use over 5,000 gp in scrolls of BoL, potions of fly, oils of daylight...the list goes on.

The solution:
I propose that the following rule be adopted in Guide 6:

Quote:
At the end of a scenario, some or all of the PCs may choose to pool their money in order to purchase a replacement for a consumable item expended during the course of the adventure which was used for the good of the party, at the presiding GM's discretion.

Potential problems:

I have pitched this idea to several people, and I would like to address the most common concerns below:

Wouldn't this allow for wealth transfer between PCs? Wouldn't it be possible for a PC to outpace their WBL by ditching consumables and having a friend transfer money to them?

First, this is not a concern, because the rule only allows for the party to pool resources to purchase a replacement for an expended consumable. Second, this would be an extremely ineffective means of wealth transfer - the offending PC would find it much easier to simply sell the consumable rather than engineer a situation with two PCs amenable to some sort of deal.

Wouldn't this create awkward social situations where a player feels entitled to reimbursement but the party did not feel the consumable was necessary?

A player who acts like this at the table is already causing other issues anyway - this rule does nothing to exacerbate that. Furthermore, this is why the GM's discretion rule is in place - in situations like this, it is often a GM's job to step in and be "the bad guy", stopping silly conflicts between players.

Is this really a problem?
Let's take a look at the cost of some consumables that you might expect a level 5 PC to have:

  • Scroll of Breath of Life, 1,150 gp
  • Oil of Daylight, 750 gp
  • Potion of Fly, 750 gp
  • Oil of Glitterdust, 300 gp
  • Potion of Resist Energy, 750 gp

Total value: 3,700
Value of playing Tier 4-5 for that PC: Around 2,000 gp
Value of playing OOT in a 3-7 for that PC: Around 2,250 gp
Value of playing Tier 5-6 for that PC: Around 2,500 gp

Conclusion:
If we want to encourage people to be prepared, we need to allow parties to share the burden of preparation. Few parties would bat an eyelash at a well-placed Oil of Daylight: Split 6 ways, that's merely 125 gp each. A single PC having to eat that much gold loss at a low level, though, is going to be frustrated.

(Edit: The forums cut off my earlier post - I have fixed it now.)

Silver Crusade

Agreed and favorited.


Question:

Do you think the game would be more fun if we were more easily able to overcome challenges like darkness?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Questions:
Are we okay with someone using an item they acquired with 2PP and being reimbursed with gold?

What about wand charges? If I get a wand of CLW and use 3 charges on you because you didn't bring your own, can you give me gold? Same with wands of faerie fire, etc.

"Oil of glitterdust"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oil of glitterdust is a real nice one.
Might want to buy some myself for the next dungeon party hehehe.


Hmmm, I think there would need to be a voluntary clause for it to be viable. Perhaps a volunteer clause allowing players to compensate for its when they felt it appropriate. I can already imagine arguments when someone dies in a way that the party deems is their fault, or where a PC has a means of subverting the problem without the item, etc.

Sadly I really do not think its practical, you would create situations where groups would be putting pressure on reluctant players, create acrimony, etc.

Perhaps an agreement would need to be reached before the item was used, but honestly that would still be problematic.

I like the idea, but I think the problems it creates are bigger than those it solves. You say a player may choose, but it seems your later clarifications mean a player may be forced, and that simply is not going to end well.

You also seem to imply that someone who refused to pay this fee would be either being a jerk, or a poor Pathfinder - I dispute this. Some players are frugal and do not like using consumables if they would rather muddle through without daylight there is nothing wrong with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benjamin Falk wrote:

Oil of glitterdust is a real nice one.

Might want to buy some myself for the next dungeon party hehehe.

And its a good way to really, REAAALLY tick off the vampires with an offensive stereotype.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rob:
Do you feel that darkness is a fun mechanic against low-level parties? A relevant mechanic against high level parties? I don't believe the answer to either is yes.

Jiggy:
While a bit unusual, yes, I would envision that a party would be able to replace a PP-purchased item. The logic here is simple: you are replacing the *item*, not giving the PC gold.

As for wand charges, I would like to see it used there, but I don't know if it's feasible under the replacement mechanic. I have ran into players who intentionally do not purchase wands of CLW because they know somebody else will purchase it. Their philosophy is that the other player can either use the wand - which they can't pay for - or the person will be a jerk and refuse to heal them, potentially leading to a TPK. They rely on healing being in the best interest of people who have purchased wands. However, to avoid giving somebody a windfall of gold, I fear that this problem is beyond the scope of this rules change.

Is there a reason you can't have an oil of glitterdust?

Broken Prince:
My apologies if I was unclear - my intention with the clarifications was to make it clear that a party is not required to all pitch in, or even all in the same amount. As for putting pressure on players and creating acrimony, the current system already does that in that it forces one player to bear the entire cost of the consumable for the good of the party, much to their own character's detriment.

Certainly, whether or not not paying in would be jerkish would be judged on a case-by-case basis. There are certain scenarios that are nearly impossible to beat without the use of an oil of daylight. Others, the darkness is merely a hindrance.


Ah, then discount my objections, I really do like the idea in principle. I would still worry about "peer pressure" but some text to the effect that GMs were to ensure nobody was being pressured should likely suffice.


Is it possible for us to end up with a situation where a player says I will use my scroll of Breath of Life on you if you reimburse me? Is that a good thing? I would say yes tentatively, its going to save you more than that, but it makes me a little uneasy.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Broken Prince: Would you rather that the PC saying that not own a Scroll of BoL in the first place? You're saving over 4k by paying for that scroll.


I guess my reservation is that its an OOC consideration being taken up IC, but I suppose we could simply hand waive such things being agreed at the beginning of the scenario.

I expect that few people would not agree to such a transaction, and in many cases the party would be willing to chip in to mitigate the cost.


I 100% support the replacement of consumables when used by a person other than the one that bought them.

Here's what I see as a problem:

Someone buys Breath of Life scroll and gives it to the cleric so he can be saved. Like an idiot, I charges in like an idiot and die. The cleric decides to use my scroll on me. Why am I precluded from repaying the debt?

There absolutely should at least be a mechanism for me to reimburse someone whose resources I consume to my benefit. I can imagine there is some reason that the rules prohibit this now, can someone enlighten me as to the reason why?


On the one hand, I would desperately like there to be a way for me to repay others when they save the day with a clutch consumable.

On the other hand, aside from charges on wands, and the issue of PP vs. Gold, I do foresee one other potential problem: it encourages players to not prepare themselves by removing teaching opportunities.

Here's what I mean:

Currently, if I want to make sure I'm covered in mid-level scenarios, I'll want a potion of Darkvision, an Oil of Daylight, a Potion of Fly, an oil of Bless Weapon, and maybe a few others like Air Bubble and/or Touch of the Sea.

That's a fair amount of gold and prestige to tie up in consumables. Now if i know there's a guy who will usually be prepared, I could just plan to mooch off him. But (hopefully, for his sake) eventually he'll get tired of bankrolling my laziness and will encourage me to get my own, stop offering his consumables, stop buying consumables, or stop playing with me. And hopefully I learn to start buying my own.

On the other hand, if I can just pay him back, there's no need for me to buy my own. And now I've got unlimited consumables as long as someone else in the party has them. The pack mule players continue footing the up-front cost for their party: their gold is tied up in consumables. Sure, they get it back when it's used, but only to turn around and replenish it. Meantime, me and my mooching buddies get to spend all our gold on sexy STR belts and magic weapons as long as we save a couple hundred GP for the occasional reimbursement.

Pros: The boy scouts get their 300gp - 750gp back. No denying this is a good thing.
Cons: No one has any reason to provide their own consumables if they know that the boy scout will have them--and they don't even have to feel guilty about it anymore since they can pay him back for a measly ~150gp*

As I said, I'd like a way for your proposal to work. But human nature being what it is, I do fear this will encourage players to hoard their gold and count on others to provide rather than spending more freely on consumables knowing they can be repaid.

*750gp / 5 = 150gp for 6-player party to repay an Oil of Daylight

Bonus wrinkle: action economy:
When you're the only one with the oil of daylight, you're the one who spends your round drawing and applying it. Everyone delays until you save the day, then they get on with their spells and swords. Some of us don't mind playing the support role like that, but for others it can be kind of a drag to spend your one round of combat rubbing some oil on your head.

If this works as intended, and more party members buy consumables (because they know they'll be reimbursed), then the action tax gets spread around, too. That's good.

If it doesn't work as intended, and everyone else comes prepared with a +3 axe and a stack of IOUs, the boy scout is consigned to a career in moisturizing.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Netopalis wrote:
Is there a reason you can't have an oil of glitterdust?

You can have one, I just don't see the point. How many rounds are you going to spend trying to smear it on the invisible bad guy?


Netopalis wrote:

Rob:

Do you feel that darkness is a fun mechanic against low-level parties? A relevant mechanic against high level parties? I don't believe the answer to either is yes.

I don't enjoy it with low level play. I've found it surprisingly relevant against mid-higher level parties who occasionally don't have daylight.

Grand Lodge

@redward: There are a significant number of moochers like that already around.

Last game I ran, all the PCs had at least 2 PP, if not 4, but only two of the PCs had gotten any sort of healing wand.

The moochers gonna mooch, but, at least with a rule like this in play, there is a chance that they might feel that they should give some buy-in for having such consumables available, instead of just freely benefiting from the boy scout like they do now.

The problem with the rule proposed is that it doesn't really cover all the differences in cost you can run into.
1) Normal gold purchase, simple, just chip in for a replacement.
2) PP purchase, same as 1, with the proviso that the replacement item has the same resale value (0) as the PP purchased item it is replacing?
3) Alchemist crafted items, which were created at 1/3 cost. Frequently provided to the whole party as a bulk item. Heck, even my 0 XP alchemist was able to do it. Surprisingly enough, the item actually came in useful during the game...

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

The cost to replace an item would be whatever it takes to purchase that item, so the alchemist items would be reimbursed at a lower cost.

As for the PP purchase thing, I think that's a bit of a red herring. I just can't see a lot of parties agreeing to pay the cost of an unnecessary consumable so that somebody can turn around and get 375 gp for 2 PP. There's a reason that PP can't be turned into gold, but I don't think that it's a relevant discussion here, because this does not allow for the gaming of that system.


I totally agree with this rule. I see prepared players get screwed by unprepared players all the time.

Now I've been on both sides of the aisle a time or two, but i would happily pay back a breathe of life scroll. Hilariously enough I almost killed another player, luckily someone had a breathe of life but I couldn't pay them back for it though I would have.

I have been on the opposite side of that transaction many more times, and have twice let pcs die I may have saved because it was a resource sink, once on a character and one time player a player I could easily justify letting die.

Here's to good rule ideas.


I like it. The wording makes it clear that you're replacing the consumable. PP couldn't be converted into gold, just an item which could be converted into... another one of that item.

/pawprint.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Jiggy wrote:
Netopalis wrote:
Is there a reason you can't have an oil of glitterdust?
You can have one, I just don't see the point. How many rounds are you going to spend trying to smear it on the invisible bad guy?

You can't have one, because it has an area instead of targets. Oils and potions can only be made out of spells with targets.

But on the main topic, I agree that this could be a workable rule.


kinevon wrote:
@redward: There are a significant number of moochers like that already around.

Oh, I'm well aware. And I'm in favor of the proposal--I just want any possible ramifications to be considered, and, if possible, accounted for in any eventual changes.


my characters onl lvl 3 but.. i really disagree with the Op's premise. the decision to purchase those items is yours. If you choose to use them or give them to somne else so that person keeps you alive it really shouldnt matter.

If you dont want the loss for them dont buy the items.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Once upon a time, I was unprepared and another PC helped me out with a 3rd level potion that they could have used themselves. I quickly learned that lesson, but had no method to pay back that person except to play better from then on. Paying back that PC with my wealth wouldn't have interfered with learning that lesson, but it would certainly have helped me feel like less of a drain on the table.

I totally support this rule change.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Mojorat wrote:

my characters onl lvl 3 but.. i really disagree with the Op's premise. the decision to purchase those items is yours. If you choose to use them or give them to somne else so that person keeps you alive it really shouldnt matter.

If you dont want the loss for them dont buy the items.

So, how would you feel if you were in a TPK that could have easily been prevented if you had purchased a single 3rd level potion? Would you be alright with everybody having made the choice to take the risk rather than purchase the item?

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am actually not in favor of this.

We don't need more rules that make it easier to be miserly instead of a team player.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

I am actually not in favor of this.

We don't need more rules that make it easier to be miserly instead of a team player.

With all due respect, earned as I think you've brought a lot of fantastic ideas to the forum, I must disagree. Is it being a team player to not purchase these items and let everybody else bear the burden? Is it being a team player to assume that, since you can't use a particular item, it is the duty of another player to purchase it and use it on you? I'd argue that's far more miserly.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The feather token tar and feathers from Andoran, Spirit of Liberty is a Glitterdust in a can for 600 gp.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Netopalis wrote:
Oil of Glitterdust,

Sorry for the derail, but Oil of Glitterdust?

PRD, Potions wrote:


A potion or oil can be used only once. It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or objects.
PRD, glitterdust wrote:
Area creatures and objects within 10-ft.-radius spread

Glittterdust don't target one or more creatures or objects. It target an area. Making a oil of glitterdust is not allowed, like making a oil of fireball is not allowed.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Netopalis wrote:


Wouldn't this create awkward social situations where a player feels entitled to reimbursement but the party did not feel the consumable was necessary?

A player who acts like this at the table is already causing other issues anyway - this rule does nothing to exacerbate that. Furthermore, this is why the GM's discretion rule is in place - in situations like this, it is often a GM's job to step in and be "the bad guy", stopping silly conflicts between players.

So:

1) you are automatically assuming malice in one of the players involved if there is a disagreement about the need of using a magic item?
That alone seem a good reason to disallow this option.

2) and you want to place the burden of the decision on the GM, just to add more troubles and more time lost in discussions at the table plus some resentment against the GM in the guy whose opinion was rejected. Someone, as you put you, that is "already causing other issues anyway". Why increasing the tension is a good thing?

Shadow Lodge

I'm not sure if I like the idea or not honestly. I can see some merit, but it also seems like that exact sort of thing that could go very wrong in unforeseen ways, cause worse issues, or have the exact opposite effect it's supposed to.

For the most part, I tend to avoid consumables. PFS is so restrictive in money, I just don't feel that most of the time they are worth it, (and have never been in a position where another player or I have died because we didn't have a potion of _________). I also tend to play divine classes a lot, so I'm already devoting a lot of my character's actions and resources to either helping others or shoring up my weaknesses to avoid the "what happens when the healer drops" issue. This sort of thing seems to try to push players to devote more resources to purchasing consumable items more often as the right way to play. I don't think it's less valid than others, but I also don't think it is any more, either, but it is not the style I prefer, personally. I'd rather save up for Boots of the Winterlands (or whatever) than wait a level or two while I invest in scrolls of Endure Elements (just an example), especially if I find said boots in a scenario.

I would be interested in seeing it playtested. Not by the OP or their friends or group, (no offense, I just mean as neutral on the topic as possible), but maybe at a few cons, completely random tables get picked to be allowed to try it out and see what they think about it in practice.

If you really want to have a petition for change, petition to make it legal to purchase a Heightened Continual Flame spell as always available. Darkness isn't fun, it's annoying and tedious, and tends to be written to screw players and Daylight over anyway. :)

Liberty's Edge

Netopalis wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

I am actually not in favor of this.

We don't need more rules that make it easier to be miserly instead of a team player.

With all due respect, earned as I think you've brought a lot of fantastic ideas to the forum, I must disagree. Is it being a team player to not purchase these items and let everybody else bear the burden? Is it being a team player to assume that, since you can't use a particular item, it is the duty of another player to purchase it and use it on you? I'd argue that's far more miserly.

Its a team player to act selflessly.

Expecting recompense is not being a team player.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Auke: That's one of the few books that I actually own a physical copy of, and I had never even noticed that. Thanks! I've been looking for the longest time for a reasonable way for melee characters to deal with invisibility.

Diego: Rules exist because there is conflict between players. Maybe it's just due to my background as a criminal defense attorney, but I generally don't feel that rules are necessary unless there is a conflict. Putting responsibility in the GM in this case prevents some of the abuses that people have complained about, such as PP farming for gold or using up expendables that are wholly unnecessary for wealth transfer. I don't imagine that there are many situations where a GM would not authorize the transaction.

Devil's Advocate: Nice avatar! Aside from that....

Since you play divine classes a lot, you probably haven't been in many parties without one. It sucks. If a party has absolutely no clerics, oracles, etc., then there's a huge gap in the party that the game expects you to fill. Most consumables that a PFS party expends emulates having a cleric in the party. Because most people really can't plan party composition ahead, and because a lot of people (wrongly) see playing clerics as a subpar option, players often find themselves without a cleric.

Playtesting is rather difficult to do with a rule like this. This would honestly not come up in most scenarios, but when it does come up, it's important. Having Heightened Continual Flame always available would be very nice, but also unrealistic - the campaign has long avoided allowing the purchase of spells with metamagic. I'm honestly not entirely sure of the origins of this rule, but I know that it's a rule that is going to be significantly harder to change than this one.


Neto: smoke pellets aren't bad if you can id the square.

Shadow Lodge

Netopalis wrote:
Devil's Advocate: Nice avatar! Aside from that....

Thank you, thank you. You too.

:)

Netopalis wrote:
Since you play divine classes a lot, you probably haven't been in many parties without one. It sucks. If a party has absolutely no clerics, oracles, etc., then there's a huge gap in the party that the game expects you to fill. Most consumables that a PFS party expends emulates having a cleric in the party. Because most people really can't plan party composition ahead, and because a lot of people (wrongly) see playing clerics as a subpar option, players often find themselves without a cleric.

Aside from a few scenario's, I'd say that's pretty true from just about any class, but particularly the "big 4" (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue/Bard, Wizard/Sorcerer).

Off Topic:
Clerics just kind of get shafted in PFS with 2+dump stat Skills, and there has been a pretty steady decline in undead antagonists as the seasons go on, and more and more forced into a healbot/secondary support. You might also notice they tend to lack cool Boon rewards. They also tend not to get much in the new shiney dept. Channeling taking their action for the turn, and the fact that they can't harm and heal with it doesn't help, in my opinion.
But, aside from that, I can kind of see your point. I think that the issue is, unlike in "home games", the party is usually random people just playing that one mission together, and there is no concept of "this DM likes to use _______" that you would get from that sort of game environment. Likewise, the group tends not to have enough experience playing with each other to know which characters have what and work together for it. Just the nature of the beast. So, I'm not against the idea, other than being a bit weary that it might not work in practice as it does in theory, I'd just like to see it in use a bit before it's made an official rule. Heck, I'm thinking of running an AP soon, so I might even give it a shot as a house rule. One possible other concern I have is that it might allow groups that do play together more regularly to stock up on these sort of party consumables, and in the long run split the price, which might start to have the effect of making a scenarios much easier to get through, but it would be a delayed effect, (and I could be wrong).
Netopalis wrote:
Having Heightened Continual Flame always available would be very nice, but also unrealistic - the campaign has long avoided allowing the purchase of spells with metamagic. I'm honestly not entirely sure of the origins of this rule, but I know that it's a rule that is going to be significantly harder to change than this one.

That was mostly meant as a joke. :) I realize it's probably not going to change, was just saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the concept. Like others, I'm a bit wary of the execution as it might definitely change the culture of how PFS is run (could be for the better, could be for the worse, I would expect a mix of both).

It would be interesting to see how it would work out in a pseudo-playtest environment. I could see a boon or chronicle with checkboxes showing how many times the ability could be used going out, something akin to:

Boon of Explore, Report, Cooperate::

At the end of any scenario in which this character takes a part, players may elect to create a group fund of gold in which to purchase replacements for any items which were consumed during the course of this scenario.
Players may choose to contribute any amount of the gold they have available that they wish, but may not be compelled to participate. The gold may only be used to replace items consumed during the course of the scenario, and replacement items can only be added to the inventory of the character who began the scenario with the item(s) in question. Any gold over and above the cost to replace the item(s) is lost.
When this boon is used, check one of the boxes below. Once all of the below boxes are checked off, cross this boon off of the chronicle sheet.

-TimD

Shadow Lodge

Who would be checking these off? The player that contributes money, the one that used the consumable, both? Are players using Pregens excluded from this?


Netopalis wrote:
Mojorat wrote:

my characters onl lvl 3 but.. i really disagree with the Op's premise. the decision to purchase those items is yours. If you choose to use them or give them to somne else so that person keeps you alive it really shouldnt matter.

If you dont want the loss for them dont buy the items.

So, how would you feel if you were in a TPK that could have easily been prevented if you had purchased a single 3rd level potion? Would you be alright with everybody having made the choice to take the risk rather than purchase the item?

The problem is your confusing 'choice' with something that is mandatory. while ive only played pfs a little bit i have finished two adventure paths.. and can honestly say ive never bought most of the items on your list.

If you purchase them it is your choice, if they are used that is again your choice.... do you see what im emphasizing? if you dont want to spend the money then just dont buy the items.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea. As long as the rule only allows direct replacement of the item, I see no potential for the abuse that others are worried about.

You spent a potion of cure serious wounds on me to get me back in the fight. At the end of the scenario, I should be allowed to buy a potion of cure serious wounds and give it to you.

No one has made any gold in this exchange. Whether you purchased the original item with gold or with prestige is immaterial. All you are getting is a replacement for the item you consumed.

It promotes sharing of resources. I think this would be a positive change for PFS.

Dark Archive

While I understand the desire for this mechanism to be in place, I don't like this idea. It will do nothing to change a player's tendencies. If an individual is inclined towards cooperating, he will already have purchased consumables with the idea that those items can help a mission succeed.

If that player's consumable, e.g. breath of life scroll, saves a player's life, then that $1250 is often money well spent and generally will be close to the amount of that player's contribution of a raise dead.

Those that do not play with this mind set, will not change their behavior. In fact, it encourages it since one can just leave the consumable purchases to others and 'replace' it at the end of the scenario spending only exactly what they needed to make it through the scenario.

Those that are pack mules will be even more so relegated to that duty.

I'd surmise that one would no longer even see the pleasant surprise of a non-spell caster handing a communal scroll over to his spell casting team member to use during the course of a scenario.

Why tie up that expense if one can just max out one's wealth on wondrous items and pay for the little stuff at the end when you know what was spent and you get the scenario's gold?

Scarab Sages

In what way is this proposed rule 'change' needed?

There is nothing preventing PCs reimbursing each other for consumables used, or pooling their funds to buy an item they believe could be essential in the coming adventure.

My last session included us planning an 'Ocean's Eleven' style infiltration, and the subject of teleporting came up. No-one else was capable, or had such a spell on their class list. I offered to buy a scroll of dimension door, and hold it to cover an emergency, but since it would require a caster level check, I suggested we should try not to rely on it.
It was also a good chunk of change, I'd rather not spend willy-nilly, so I suggested that we share the cost. If it proved to be essential to avoid TPK, we have all contributed up-front to our survival.
If it doesn't get used, I would keep the scroll, and buy out everybody else's share (I showed them I had the means).
They all agreed.
Gold was crossed off everybody's sheets, the scroll was purchased.
The scroll was not required, so I bought out their shares at the end of the session.
Gold was crossed off my sheet, and added to the others.
The GM signed off on the net difference, at the end of the session.

I've also paid a quarter share of another PC's raise dead, because we all agreed he had pulled above his duty (he died to a particularly dangerous NPC, while the rest of us were delayed by difficult terrain and/or rescuing hostages from choking to death).
We held a vote, agreed to pay for his raising, crossed the gold off our sheets, and the GM signed off on it.
There's no difference between that, and the PCs splitting the cost of a raise dead scroll.

So what is preventing players doing this?

This is a solution, desperately searching for a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Snorter:

PCs can't give each other money, for any reason except purchasing spells

page 22 of the guide

In Pathfinder Society Organized Play, you may never buy
items from, sell items to, or trade items with another player.
You may, however, allow another player to borrow an item for
the duration of a scenario. You are also permitted to spend
your character’s gold to help a party member purchase
spellcasting services such as raise dead or remove disease.

If the cleric invested in say, a breath of life scroll you can't give him the money back. Nor can you buy him one (that effectively buying the item off of him). He's out the rather significant chunk of cash.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

What I've seen groups do:

The person who benefited buys a copy of the item and marks it as used. The person who had the item during the adventure gets to leave the table with "their" item back.

Scarab Sages

Netopalis wrote:

As the development team prepares version 6 of our beloved guide, I thought that this would be a good opportunity to open a discussion on a rule that I have long wished was in place: a provision allowing party members to reimburse each other for expensive consumables used during the course of an adventure.

The problem:
As the game stands right now, there is little incentive for players to purchase and use often-necessary consumables, such as Oil of Daylight, Scroll of Breath of Life, Oil of Glitterdust, and so-on. The cost of these consumables can be significantly higher than the payout of some low-level adventures, yet are truly life-savers.

As a campaign, we want to encourage our players to cooperate with each other and be prepared for odd things. My favorite times at the table are when I present a tricky problem, and a player pulls out something creative that fits the situation perfectly. It's good for everybody involved, but these things can cause a significant hit to your WBL. Players who are constantly prepared for everything may find themselves unable to purchase more expensive equipment on down the road, or at the very least may feel a bit discouraged by the fact that they are always the one who has to pay for daylight. In one 5-9 scenario, I saw a particular PC use over 5,000 gp in scrolls of BoL, potions of fly, oils of daylight...the list goes on.

The solution:
I propose that the following rule be adopted in Guide 6:

Quote:
At the end of a scenario, some or all of the PCs may choose to pool their money in order to purchase a replacement for a consumable item expended during the course of the adventure which was used for the good of the party, at the presiding GM's discretion.
.

I don't know how you report such on the ITS - since every time you use it you mark it used, and for magic items and items 25gp and more you have to keep the used item on your ITS. So you would not be tracking gold very well if the purchasing of the items invoked other people's gold.

So a broad you can always do this might be a problem - though I can understand it especially with the breath of life scroll where the person who buys the scroll rarely benefits from it.

Maybe on chronicle sheets that don't fill up all of their boon space there could be a replenish oil or potion - where the people who contributed could be marked and the gold - so there is a more pronounced record.

Oil of Fairie Fire is a much better item than oil of glitterdust - cheaper, lasts longer - though I am not sure why you would want one.


Farie fire probably can't be an oil either. It affects an area, not a person really.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


page 22 of the guide

You may, however, allow another player to borrow an item for
the duration of a scenario.

As I said last time this topic came up, when I let a friend borrow $5 from me, I expect $5 back (not the same 5 dollar bill, but $5). Until a ruling otherwise, I see no reason why this sentence of the Guide does not allow for the return of the borrowed and expended item at the end of the scenario, paying the money but replacing the original item, not giving money to the player who expended it. This is commonly used for breath of life scrolls, with the payout made by either the party together or the person who died depending on how the death happened.

This is standard practice in the Boston area--we actually have a very high level of teamwork and supportive characters and players, which is something I love about our region.

Liberty's Edge

We have an incredibly high level of team work and cooperation in the Twin Cities.

And we often give up our consumables for the good of the group without expectation of recompense.

I don't believe the rules currently support any kind of return of an expended consumable.


Hey, clarification, errata, if we can do that then great.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A guy really likes his fighter to fly. Now that it cost him 150 gp he does it at least once every adventure. I don't feel it was really necessary for him to be able to fly, maybe the combat ends 1 round earlier. But if I don't pay him 150 gp to 'reimburse' him I am accused of not being a 'team player'.

With consumables effectively 75% off I can see some folks using them left and right as long as they are being subsidized by others.


Mark Seifter wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


page 22 of the guide

You may, however, allow another player to borrow an item for
the duration of a scenario.

As I said last time this topic came up, when I let a friend borrow $5 from me, I expect $5 back (not the same 5 dollar bill, but $5). Until a ruling otherwise, I see no reason why this sentence of the Guide does not allow for the return of the borrowed and expended item at the end of the scenario, paying the money but replacing the original item, not giving money to the player who expended it. This is commonly used for breath of life scrolls, with the payout made by either the party together or the person who died depending on how the death happened.

This is standard practice in the Boston area--we actually have a very high level of teamwork and supportive characters and players, which is something I love about our region.

This is a really good point I had not thought of.

1 to 50 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.