|
As ealier stated if a wizard want to cast a spell like create pit, they need to have the material companant which is a shovel costing 10 gp.
Now the rule does state that you only need to put purchases of only 25gp or more on the ITS. But if it does not show up on any chronicles stating he purchased that 10gp shovel I, as a GM, will not let them cast it.
So the current version of the rules says that purchases of 25 gp or more must be tracked on the ITS, with only a summary gold cost appearing on each chronicle, but purchases of less than 25gp must be listed separately on the chronicle sheet?
And for consumable ones, found and crossed out and initialed by the GM when used?
No...only the gold has to be accounted for on the chronicle in the "gold spent" box. Mark the item on the character sheet and done.
Consumables are tracked by the player, but again, purchase expense must be accounted for on the chronicle (or ITS as appropriate) as a gold expense.
So, how does this fit in: "if it does not show up on any chronicles stating he purchased that 10gp shovel"?
Do we go back through chronicles looking for an otherwise unaccounted for 10gp?
No. If they have a 10gp shovel listed on their item inventory on their character sheet, then they are good to go. If they don't, then they can't cast the spell. As far as tracking that specific 10gp gold expenditure, just trust them if they have it listed on their character sheet.
The ITS is not a substitute for a list of all the items you have. It is simply a tracking sheet for all gold expenditures over 25gp.
|
|
Like I mentioned earlier, I put everything on the ITS. I also put it on the chronicle sheets to show i have the correct Fame for it. And to keep track of when I bought it.
Personally I would treat it like my arrows and put it on the ITS any way. Put down how many I bought. And scratch out those lovely little boxes next to the item line as I let them fly.
The other method could work. As well. I usually have the GM sign off on a one time use boon. As for other items. Make a note of it in play and wait untill after the scenario to have them GM initial it.
But whatever you personally do, as a GM you would not allow a player to use a 10gp item unless it was specifically mentioned on either the ITS or a chronicle?
Or was I misunderstanding your earlier post?
You were misunderstanding him.
They have to have listed on their character sheet, that they own the shovel.
The gold expenditure tracking will be difficult to find (unless they put it on the ITS or know which chronicle they purchased it on) as it will just be an extra 10gp (probably among a few other extra less than 25gp expenditures).
At some point, we just have to trust people. If its listed on their inventory of items on their character sheet (or on a separate sheet), then I won't make them show me where they actually purchased it.
If it isn't on any sheet, and it has to be purchased by rule (any spell component with a specific listed cost, no matter how small, must be purchased and is not assumed to be owned in the cost of a spell component pouch), then they don't have it.
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I mentioned earlier, I put everything on the ITS. I also put it on the chronicle sheets to show i have the correct Fame for it. And to keep track of when I bought it.
Personally I would treat it like my arrows and put it on the ITS any way. Put down how many I bought. And scratch out those lovely little boxes next to the item line as I let them fly.
The other method could work. As well. I usually have the GM sign off on a one time use boon. As for other items. Make a note of it in play and wait untill after the scenario to have them GM initial it.
But whatever you personally do, as a GM you would not allow a player to use a 10gp item unless it was specifically mentioned on either the ITS or a chronicle?
Or was I misunderstanding your earlier post?
Oh, Ok.
I do not expect people to be as OCD as me when it comes to inventory list. I admit I might need counseling for my issues.I would prefer it to show up as a little note on a chronicle sheet somewhere saying "Item 10gp". Or at the very least, it be marked in there gear list on the second page of the Character Sheet.
Just as long as there is some proof saying yes they bought it.
Example: lets stick with the dreaded 10 gp shovel. Yes a minor object cost 10gp. But it leads to a spell that could easily change an outcome of an encounter.
But does that mean I am going to go through every single page everytime they cast a spell. NO!
The persons Integrity and your Trust have to meet in the middle.
|
|
Like I mentioned earlier, I put everything on the ITS. I also put it on the chronicle sheets to show i have the correct Fame for it. And to keep track of when I bought it.
Personally I would treat it like my arrows and put it on the ITS any way. Put down how many I bought. And scratch out those lovely little boxes next to the item line as I let them fly.
The other method could work. As well. I usually have the GM sign off on a one time use boon. As for other items. Make a note of it in play and wait untill after the scenario to have them GM initial it.
But whatever you personally do, as a GM you would not allow a player to use a 10gp item unless it was specifically mentioned on either the ITS or a chronicle?
Or was I misunderstanding your earlier post?
You were misunderstanding him.
They have to have listed on their character sheet, that they own the shovel.
The gold expenditure tracking will be difficult to find (unless they put it on the ITS or know which chronicle they purchased it on) as it will just be an extra 10gp (probably among a few other extra less than 25gp expenditures).
At some point, we just have to trust people. If its listed on their inventory of items on their character sheet (or on a separate sheet), then I won't make them show me where they actually purchased it.
If it isn't on any sheet, and it has to be purchased by rule (any spell component with a specific listed cost, no matter how small, must be purchased and is not assumed to be owned in the cost of a spell component pouch), then they don't have it.
This.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a question for other GMs:
If you encounter a spellcaster who just records a 10-25 GP expenditure every once in a while on their chronicle sheets with an entry of "random" or "misc. mat. comp." would you be ok assuming that spellcaster had all the basic components and focal items they needed (even a 10 GP shovel)?
|
|
Here's a question for other GMs:
If you encounter a spellcaster who just records a 10-25 GP expenditure every once in a while on their chronicle sheets with an entry of "random" or "misc. mat. comp." would you be ok assuming that spellcaster had all the basic components and focal items they needed (even a 10 GP shovel)?
It depends.
Not sure why they wouldn't have it on their inventory list of items on their character sheet (or perhaps a separate sheet of special spell components/foci).
But if they can point me to a specific expenditure, I'd probably be inclined to accept it.
|
|
Well, I agree and that's how I thought it worked, which is why I was surprised with what read to me like a very explicit "It must be on a Chronicle or the ITS" statement.Like I mentioned earlier, I put everything on the ITS. I also put it on the chronicle sheets to show i have the correct Fame for it. And to keep track of when I bought it.
Personally I would treat it like my arrows and put it on the ITS any way. Put down how many I bought. And scratch out those lovely little boxes next to the item line as I let them fly.
The other method could work. As well. I usually have the GM sign off on a one time use boon. As for other items. Make a note of it in play and wait untill after the scenario to have them GM initial it.
But whatever you personally do, as a GM you would not allow a player to use a 10gp item unless it was specifically mentioned on either the ITS or a chronicle?
Or was I misunderstanding your earlier post?
You were misunderstanding him.
They have to have listed on their character sheet, that they own the shovel.
The gold expenditure tracking will be difficult to find (unless they put it on the ITS or know which chronicle they purchased it on) as it will just be an extra 10gp (probably among a few other extra less than 25gp expenditures).
At some point, we just have to trust people. If its listed on their inventory of items on their character sheet (or on a separate sheet), then I won't make them show me where they actually purchased it.
If it isn't on any sheet, and it has to be purchased by rule (any spell component with a specific listed cost, no matter how small, must be purchased and is not assumed to be owned in the cost of a spell component pouch), then they don't have it.
Even in what he said...it must be on a Chronicle...it's just wrapped in the "gold spent" box as part of the number. That's all I've been trying to say.
I'm not going to go haggle down every expense if I happen to audit or look for a named spell component. I'm going to see that it was on the character inventory, and assume it's been paid for on one of the chronicles as is supposed to be done.
Online here, I was stating for clarity that it needs to be part of the gold spent total on a chronicle even if it's not listed on an ITS as a purchase due to value.
|
|
It depends.Not sure why they wouldn't have it on their inventory list of items on their character sheet (or perhaps a separate sheet of special spell components/foci).
But if they can point me to a specific expenditure, I'd probably be inclined to accept it.
Having come from LG, I tend to put down a "high lifestyle" (25 gold) cost every few chronicle sheets for any arcane casters I run and was not actually putting necessary foci on my character sheet, but I'll be going home tonight to check all 3 of my arcane casters in PFS to make sure they have it.
|
|
One other thing:
Its been a pretty long staple of table top roleplaying of every genre and system, that if it isn't listed on your list of items, somewhere, then you don't have it.
For new folk to roleplaying, maybe it isn't as obvious. But even in computer or console games, if you don't have a mining pick, you can't mine the gold.
So I feel absolutely no guilt as a GM, if I disallow you to use an item or spell, if you don't have it specifically listed that you own the item. Although, I most often just assume you have the item and don't ask, unless I have some reason to assume you might be being less than honest.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
Well, I agree and that's how I thought it worked, which is why I was surprised with what read to me like a very explicit "It must be on a Chronicle or the ITS" statement.Like I mentioned earlier, I put everything on the ITS. I also put it on the chronicle sheets to show i have the correct Fame for it. And to keep track of when I bought it.
Personally I would treat it like my arrows and put it on the ITS any way. Put down how many I bought. And scratch out those lovely little boxes next to the item line as I let them fly.
The other method could work. As well. I usually have the GM sign off on a one time use boon. As for other items. Make a note of it in play and wait untill after the scenario to have them GM initial it.
But whatever you personally do, as a GM you would not allow a player to use a 10gp item unless it was specifically mentioned on either the ITS or a chronicle?
Or was I misunderstanding your earlier post?
You were misunderstanding him.
They have to have listed on their character sheet, that they own the shovel.
The gold expenditure tracking will be difficult to find (unless they put it on the ITS or know which chronicle they purchased it on) as it will just be an extra 10gp (probably among a few other extra less than 25gp expenditures).
At some point, we just have to trust people. If its listed on their inventory of items on their character sheet (or on a separate sheet), then I won't make them show me where they actually purchased it.
If it isn't on any sheet, and it has to be purchased by rule (any spell component with a specific listed cost, no matter how small, must be purchased and is not assumed to be owned in the cost of a spell component pouch), then they don't have it.
Even in what he said...it must be on a Chronicle...it's just wrapped in the "gold spent" box as part of the number. That's all I've been trying to say.
I'm not going to go...
Thats why i like some of the older season sheets. There are actual boxes to sell and buy things.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Somebody has to say it.
I think a lot of you are being WAY too strict for a recreational activity.
And being unfair.
The wizard with an Int of 20 is going to have the shovel, even if the overworked player with an Int of less than 20 forgot to spend several hours looking through all his spells.
If you notice the guy hasn't a shovel then just make him retroactively buy it. His character would have.
For really expensive things like stoneskin, restoration, etc I'm going to be strict. There a character genuinely has to plan ahead and decide how much money to allocate (or use what in my opinion is the WORDT spell in the game, blood money). But a 10 gp focus? That is just being silly.
I think enforcing the rules to the level of detail of not letting a wizard cast create pit because the PLAYER forgot to buy and record the purchase comes exceedingly close to being a jerk. Heck, I'll be honest and say that I think it passes that point, even though it is "only" enforcing the rules. Many, many rules should NOT be totally enforced in all circumstances, especially for a recreational activity.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Somebody has to say it.
I think a lot of you are being WAY too strict for a recreational activity.
And being unfair.
The wizard with an Int of 20 is going to have the shovel, even if the overworked player with an Int of less than 20 forgot to spend several hours looking through all his spells.
If you notice the guy hasn't a shovel then just make him retroactively buy it. His character would have.
For really expensive things like stoneskin, restoration, etc I'm going to be strict. There a character genuinely has to plan ahead and decide how much money to allocate (or use what in my opinion is the WORDT spell in the game, blood money). But a 10 gp focus? That is just being silly.
I think enforcing the rules to the level of detail of not letting a wizard cast create pit because the PLAYER forgot to buy and record the purchase comes exceedingly close to being a jerk. Heck, I'll be honest and say that I think it passes that point, even though it is "only" enforcing the rules. Many, many rules should NOT be totally enforced in all circumstances, especially for a recreational activity.
I think its silly for a player to expect a GM to allow them to not follow the rules.
Am I going to be auditing spellcasters specifically for 10gp foci? No.
Am I going to even spend time constantly questioning every spell? No.
But if circumstances has me realizing they don't have a shovel on their character sheet, and we are in a situation where purchasing one will not be possible, then I would be remiss in allowing them to cast create pit.
This is a recreational activity. True. But part of the social contract with this recreational activity, is that the participants follow the rules of the game. And if you choose to play a character type that requires copious amounts of book-keeping, then the social contract requires that you do that book-keeping. And if you forget to do some of that book-keeping, then the consequences are you don't get to use that aspect of the character that was dependent upon that book-keeping.
That isn't the GM being a jerk. The player expecting that the GM will just overlook things and then getting upset when they don't, is where the jerk behavior happens.
A GM specifically auditing characters to try and trap specific options the don't like, however, is the GM being a jerk.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
To further my above point:
Players, in PFS, expect GM's to follow RAW so strictly, that some really broken options become available. "Hey, the rules support XYZ so you can't stop me from totally destroying the scenario with XYZ, nyah, nyah!"
But when RAW says you gotta buy a 10gp shovel to cast create pit the GM is supposed to ignore RAW because the character would have remembered to buy it?
Either we are playing RAW, or we aren't. You don't get to choose based on what's convenient for you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't audit for spell foci or components, BUT if I happen to remember on the fly that X spell they're casting has a foci or component requirement, then yes they need to have it. A new player, I'll probably let them just buy it right then and there and move on. An experienced gamer is probably not going to be able to cast that spell.
The player is the one choosing their spells. They should be looking up their spells when they do so to make sure they know what they actually do. If they don't actually read their spells when choosing, that really isn't my fault. There is some level of personal accountability in character creation and playing that I expect of players.
|
|
To further my above point:
Players, in PFS, expect GM's to follow RAW so strictly, that some really broken options become available. "Hey, the rules support XYZ so you can't stop me from totally destroying the scenario with XYZ, nyah, nyah!"
But when RAW says you gotta buy a 10gp shovel to cast create pit the GM is supposed to ignore RAW because the character would have remembered to buy it?
Either we are playing RAW, or we aren't. You don't get to choose based on what's convenient for you.
Not only that, but a player's insistence of what is RAW doesn't automatically trump what the GM's reading of what is RAW (or even RAI).
Just because something can be read the way you read it, doesn't mean it's 1. the ONLY way to read it or 2. superior to the way the GM reads it.
|
|
To further my above point:
Players, in PFS, expect GM's to follow RAW so strictly, that some really broken options become available. "Hey, the rules support XYZ so you can't stop me from totally destroying the scenario with XYZ, nyah, nyah!"
But when RAW says you gotta buy a 10gp shovel to cast create pit the GM is supposed to ignore RAW because the character would have remembered to buy it?
Either we are playing RAW, or we aren't. You don't get to choose based on what's convenient for you.
My interpretation of RAW is looser than some. I think many try to apply a ridiculously rigid and pedantic standard to the rules that the rules just cannot support. Heck, legal contracts written by lawyers can't stand up to the level of nitpicking that some players do. Intent very much matters in RAW (just like it does in actual contracts).
Note that I'm NOT saying that the player gets to ignore the shovel. I'm saying that when the problem is discovered the solution should be to assume it is a player mistake and allow it to be rectified. I think my solution definitely falls within the scope of RAW.
|
|
To further my above point:
Players, in PFS, expect GM's to follow RAW so strictly, that some really broken options become available. "Hey, the rules support XYZ so you can't stop me from totally destroying the scenario with XYZ, nyah, nyah!"
But when RAW says you gotta buy a 10gp shovel to cast create pit the GM is supposed to ignore RAW because the character would have remembered to buy it?
Either we are playing RAW, or we aren't. You don't get to choose based on what's convenient for you.
Not only that, but a player's insistence of what is RAW doesn't automatically trump what the GM's reading of what is RAW (or even RAI).
Just because something can be read the way you read it, doesn't mean it's 1. the ONLY way to read it or 2. the way the GM has to agree to read it.
Very true.
All this being said, fun should be the primary concern of everyone involved. And if having to do extra book-keeping and remembering all sorts of "petty" details isn't fun for you, then perhaps choosing a character type that requires such, is not for you.
|
|
To further my above point:
Players, in PFS, expect GM's to follow RAW so strictly, that some really broken options become available. "Hey, the rules support XYZ so you can't stop me from totally destroying the scenario with XYZ, nyah, nyah!"
But when RAW says you gotta buy a 10gp shovel to cast create pit the GM is supposed to ignore RAW because the character would have remembered to buy it?
Either we are playing RAW, or we aren't. You don't get to choose based on what's convenient for you.
My interpretation of RAW is looser than some. I think many try to apply a ridiculously rigid and pedantic standard to the rules that the rules just cannot support. Heck, legal contracts written by lawyers can't stand up to the level of nitpicking that some players do. Intent very much matters in RAW (just like it does in actual contracts).
Note that I'm NOT saying that the player gets to ignore the shovel. I'm saying that when the problem is discovered the solution should be to assume it is a player mistake and allow it to be rectified. I think my solution definitely falls within the scope of RAW.
But it doesn't fall within the scope of RAW.
Either you purchased the shovel or you didn't. And if you didn't, and you are out in the middle of the wilderness, there are no rules in the book that account for using the "way back machine" to account for actions taken that weren't actually taken (except apparently for the remembered VC briefings at the start of a Scenario).
As Kevin said above, at some point the player needs to take personal accountability for their own character.
It is very nice and generous of you to allow retroactive purchases. But you being willing to do so does not make everyone else a jerk for not being willing to do so.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note that I'm NOT saying that the player gets to ignore the shovel. I'm saying that when the problem is discovered the solution should be to assume it is a player mistake and allow it to be rectified. I think my solution definitely falls within the scope of RAW.
Or to perhaps put it another way, enforcing the rules doesn't have to involve a "gotcha!" moment, such as being stuck with a prepared spell that you can't actually cast.
When a player corrects a GM on a point of rules, nobody would gripe at having them say, "Oh, then I guess X would have happened back there instead of Y," (within reason), so when a GM corrects a player on a point of rules, the GM shouldn't have an issue with the player saying, "Oh, sorry, I guess my character would have bought that shovel; I'll mark down the 10gp," (within reason, accounting for experience/past behavior, etc).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note that I'm NOT saying that the player gets to ignore the shovel. I'm saying that when the problem is discovered the solution should be to assume it is a player mistake and allow it to be rectified. I think my solution definitely falls within the scope of RAW.Or to perhaps put it another way, enforcing the rules doesn't have to involve a "gotcha!" moment, such as being stuck with a prepared spell that you can't actually cast.
When a player corrects a GM on a point of rules, nobody would gripe at having them say, "Oh, then I guess X would have happened back there instead of Y," (within reason), so when a GM corrects a player on a point of rules, the GM shouldn't have an issue with the player saying, "Oh, sorry, I guess my character would have bought that shovel; I'll mark down the 10gp," (within reason, accounting for experience/past behavior, etc).
I certainly would be willing to make allowances for a newer player who is unfamiliar with all the rules.
I certainly would be willing to make allowances for someone who hasn't played that character in quite some time. Sometimes it is hard to get back into the swing of a character after a long absence.
But a veteran player, who's been playing that character fairly consistently? Especially one that I know has a very firm grasp on the rules? Especially a player that I know likes to take advantage of what the GM doesn't know to do things that aren't strictly by the rules?
Hell no.
As always, specific circumstances will trump the general.
|
|
I´m with Andrew here. His argumentation makes a lot of sense to me.
However, many people are not aware of these aspects of the game.
How many sorcerers, wizards, arcanists, etc are there with a STR of 8 or lower? How do they carry all that stuff and when and where do they buy it?
Feats like false focus and blood money exist for a reason.
I do think this aspect of the game could be made a bit easier though.
Costs and weight for the material could/should be listed.
And there are questions like do you need a fully grown shovel or is a miniature shovel enough? The latter one could easily be part of a spell component pouch....
That´s not in PFS territory to decide though.
|
|
Jiggy,
The difference is going back and correcting an action that happened, often, within the same round of combat. If going back and correcting something would have to retread an entire slew of actions over a few rounds, then I often let the mistake stand and correct things going forward.
If the mistake results in a death or loss of major consumables, I would probably allow the death to not happen and the consumable to remain unconsumed. Although this happens fairly rarely.
Using the "way back machine" to go back not only a few actions in the same round of combat, but to change what happened during ambiguous time between scenarios, is fairly different.
|
|
Costs and weight for the material could/should be listed.
Spell components are normally in a spell component pouch. Its bought usually as the first thing on a casters shopping list at first level.
And there are questions like do you need a fully grown shovel or is a miniature shovel enough?
Miniature. Thats specified in the spell component line. Since no weight is given and it's a piece of jewelry it has no weight.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy,
The difference is going back and correcting an action that happened, often, within the same round of combat. If going back and correcting something would have to retread an entire slew of actions over a few rounds, then I often let the mistake stand and correct things going forward.
If the mistake results in a death or loss of major consumables, I would probably allow the death to not happen and the consumable to remain unconsumed. Although this happens fairly rarely.
Using the "way back machine" to go back not only a few actions in the same round of combat, but to change what happened during ambiguous time between scenarios, is fairly different.
Hence my parenthetical caveats. :)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
I agree with Andrew on this one.
I even said earlier. If the player is new, I will let him mark it off after the scenario. But if you know the player has a thorough knowldge of the game. You should expect him to cross check his facts and get it strait and if it makes me a jerk. So be it.
|
|
And there are questions like do you need a fully grown shovel or is a miniature shovel enough? The latter one could easily be part of a spell component pouch....V, S, F (miniature shovel costing 10 gp)
In this case I would say its of negligible size and weight.
But what if the foci actually does have a weight listed in the equipment lists? And what if the weight would have put the character over his medium weight threshold and now they move at 20 speed instead of 30?
What if there is a time limit in a scenario where the difference in 20 or 30 speed might matter? (there is at least one scenario out there where this is true).
How do I then adjudicate the "way back machine" to allow for the purchase of that item retroactively and how the effects of carrying that item might affect the rest of the game that's already happened?
Do I then penalize the group for being late? Require the purchase of a fly or expeditious retreat potion as well? Do I require the spellcaster to cast(and perhaps memorize) a spell to mitigate the slower speed that would have had a specific outcome in the scenario?
I'd be far more likely to allow the spellcaster to choose a different spell to have memorized than allow them to purchase an item retroactively.
|
|
Either you purchased the shovel or you didn't.
...
It is very nice and generous of you to allow retroactive purchases. But you being willing to do so does not make everyone else a jerk for not being willing to do so.
So, despite what you said up thread, you ARE comfortable with a TPK by starvation/thirst if the players forgot to buy food/water in a scenario where they can't logically acquire it later?
If you EVER allow an experienced player to take back an action because he got a rule wrong or made a mistake his character wouldn't have or EVER take back an action as an experienced GM because you made a mistake that the NPC would not have or because you got a rule wrong then you're inconsistently applying the rules and cannot really defend your actions with the "RAW trumps logic" mantra.
allowing mistakes to be rectified is a GOOD thing. Heck. I'd argue that is a NECESSARY thing.
This game is hideously complicated. EVERYBODY makes MULTIPLE mistakes EVERY SINGLE SESSION.
Stopping a character from throwing a spell they have memorized because the player made an essentially irrelevant mistake is, in my opinion, a jerk move. Legal, yes. But a jerk move.
Note, I am NOT calling anybody a jerk. Doing an occasional jerk move (especially hypothetically in a message board thread :-)) doesn't make one a jerk.
|
|
Paul, are you ignoring this point?
As always, specific circumstances will trump the general.
No.
That is why the only thing that I have specifically labelled as a jerk move is not allowing somebody to retroactively buy a cheap miniature shovel as a focus for a spell they have memorized.
Edit: even if the player is quite experienced I think this is a jerk move.
|
|
Thanks for pointing out the minitiature shovel...
BNW sums up the problem i see there, especially for newer players or more casual players. Pieces of jewelry do have a weight though, just like rings, headbands and other stuff.
How much do the 20 onyx for the 20 command undead weight?
There are a lot of spells. I know at least one that has an actual weapon as a material component which is expanded. That weapon could even be adamantine, with not entirely clear consequences. (Spell is from people of the sands.)
There is surely a lot of table variation and i´ve seen people completely neglect this part of the game because they think it sucks, GM´s and players alike.
Something like that should be cleared and stated before the game, giving the people a chance to adapt. The whole thing is a borderlining act.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
And there are questions like do you need a fully grown shovel or is a miniature shovel enough? The latter one could easily be part of a spell component pouch....V, S, F (miniature shovel costing 10 gp)In this case I would say its of negligible size and weight.
But what if the foci actually does have a weight listed in the equipment lists? And what if the weight would have put the character over his medium weight threshold and now they move at 20 speed instead of 30?
What if there is a time limit in a scenario where the difference in 20 or 30 speed might matter? (there is at least one scenario out there where this is true).
How do I then adjudicate the "way back machine" to allow for the purchase of that item retroactively and how the effects of carrying that item might affect the rest of the game that's already happened?
Do I then penalize the group for being late? Require the purchase of a fly or expeditious retreat potion as well? Do I require the spellcaster to cast(and perhaps memorize) a spell to mitigate the slower speed that would have had a specific outcome in the scenario?
I'd be far more likely to allow the spellcaster to choose a different spell to have memorized than allow them to purchase an item retroactively.
What if the only place it is listed is on the spell and there are no cost or weight to be found?
Read Magic
Components V, S, F (a clear crystal or mineral prism)
Message
Components V, S, F (a piece of copper wire)
Sorry, I can't find a cost or weight for either of these. How much should I pay?
I only found these because I saw this thread and I decided to go back and look through my spells at the various foci on my spontaneous caster -- that character has a limited number of spells. I haven't looked at the Cleric spell list. Most of them are DF, but there might be a couple of "Gotcha!" spells in there. Even for a 3rd level character, that is a lot of work.
What do I need to do to make two of my cantrips right? They use foci, so even if I had Eschew Materials it wouldn't do anything -- that is only for Material Components. Since I'm now aware of the issues, I do want to handle it correctly.
I can see maybe going hard core on something costing significant money, such as the mirror required for the wizard version of the Scrying spell. Still likely to just ask "Did you need to buy that mirror?" rather than "Sorry, your plan has a fatal flaw."
I don't mind audits of character sheets. As a player I do a self-audit every once in a while, trying to catch oversights or errors. I'll freely admit that until today foci were not something I worried about.
It sounds like the OP had reason to suspect something was off, in which case an audit is appropriate. If the GM is asking that you check for a piece of equipment, you check and handle it then -- you don't ignore it. Not having chronicles and an ITS means that character isn't legal for play.
That said, I would much rather any audits be done outside the allotted time for the game. Ask the player to stay so that you can do the audit, or for a local game ask them to show up early next time so there is time for the audit. Make it clear this isn't a matter of punishment, you just want to check for any errors and correct anything found.
Everyone makes errors.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
And there are questions like do you need a fully grown shovel or is a miniature shovel enough? The latter one could easily be part of a spell component pouch....V, S, F (miniature shovel costing 10 gp)In this case I would say its of negligible size and weight.
But what if the foci actually does have a weight listed in the equipment lists? And what if the weight would have put the character over his medium weight threshold and now they move at 20 speed instead of 30?
What if there is a time limit in a scenario where the difference in 20 or 30 speed might matter? (there is at least one scenario out there where this is true).
How do I then adjudicate the "way back machine" to allow for the purchase of that item retroactively and how the effects of carrying that item might affect the rest of the game that's already happened?
Do I then penalize the group for being late? Require the purchase of a fly or expeditious retreat potion as well? Do I require the spellcaster to cast(and perhaps memorize) a spell to mitigate the slower speed that would have had a specific outcome in the scenario?
I'd be far more likely to allow the spellcaster to choose a different spell to have memorized than allow them to purchase an item retroactively.
What if the only place it is listed is on the spell and there are no cost or weight to be found?
Read Magic
Components V, S, F (a clear crystal or mineral prism)Message
Components V, S, F (a piece of copper wire)Sorry, I can't find a cost or weight for either of these. How much should I pay?
I only found these because I saw this thread and I decided to go back and look through my spells at the various foci on my spontaneous caster -- that character has a limited number of spells. I haven't looked at the Cleric spell list. Most of them are DF, but there might be a couple of "Gotcha!" spells in there. Even for a...
I believe if no cost is listed is considered to be in a spell component pouch(if you bought one) or is covered by the eschew materials feat
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
Sorry, I can't find a cost or weight for either of these. How much should I pay?5gp.
Missed that the spell component pouch included Foci. That is a relief.
I also put every item on my ITS. Not doing so is asking for trouble.
Generally, no, I do not check ITS most games - only when something seems off.
I don't go to these places often, but in the instance mentioned in the OP, I think it was okay.
Don't need to check them...UNLESS something seems off. I think that also applies to gear. Of course, if they don't want you to inspect, it, don't...just make sure they are aware they don't get the bonuses they've been counting either until they show validation of what they claim.
