Sharing consumables (PFS Rules Change?)


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

nosig wrote:


Who get's the money? Or are they buying 1/2 a set of First Aid Gloves and giving them to Fred to replace the 1/2 he "spent"... Do we need rules to pay for PARTS of magic items?

Yes you would. What happens when someone uses, say, a scroll of Protection from energy, communal to save the entire party from a followup fireball or dragon's breath?

5/5 5/55/55/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:

So... How about when several players want to "chip in" to "buy the replacement item"?

Jo jumps in front of the monster and buys the farm.
Fred sees her going down, steps up and blows 1/2 a set of First Aid Gloves on her - keeping the meat-shield in the game.
Terry and Jackie (for whatever reasons) want to "chip in" on part of the replacement cost...

How the heck do we figure this?

Pretty much the same way we do Jo's ressurection?
Who get's the money? Or are they buying 1/2 a set of First Aid Gloves and giving them to Fred to replace the 1/2 he "spent"... Do we need rules to pay for PARTS of magic items?

Just call it the Michael Jackson clause

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElyasRavenwood wrote:

Well this is what I have done, while GMing and while playing, and I did this while being a VC as well.

I would let the PC "use" his breath of life scroll to save another PC from death. Then at the end of the scenario I would ask the player of PC who was saved from death, to deduct the cost of a breath of life scroll from his/her gold as if they had "bought" one. I would then ask the first Player who kindly stepped up to use his breath of life scroll to keep his scroll as 'unused". In essence we would "ret con" that the player whose character who would have died, had brought a scroll of breath of life after all.

People were happy with this arrangement. I the GM was happy someone had a breath of life scroll on hand....and the players were both happy, one kept his scroll, the other's character didn't die, and we felt it was a fair way to handle this situation.

I compared it to splitting the cost of a raise dead spell at the end of the adventure, except we were doing it in the middle of the scenario.

This is something which is pretty blatantly not legal and simply encourages people to continue to be poorly prepared. If you are at the stage where Breath of Life is a fairly common consumable you are well past the newbie stage where you may need some hand holding.

If we are to allow any form of reimbursement then it needs to be on a voluntary basis in the same way chipping in for raise dead or restoration is voluntary. I haven't yet refused to help someone with a raise cost but I can certainly envisage situations where I would.

The Exchange 5/5

Hiruma Kai wrote:
nosig wrote:


Who get's the money? Or are they buying 1/2 a set of First Aid Gloves and giving them to Fred to replace the 1/2 he "spent"... Do we need rules to pay for PARTS of magic items?
Yes you would. What happens when someone uses, say, a scroll of Protection from energy, communal to save the entire party from a followup fireball or dragon's breath?

Clearly something we need more of - rules....

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:

So... How about when several players want to "chip in" to "buy the replacement item"?

Jo jumps in front of the monster and buys the farm.
Fred sees her going down, steps up and blows 1/2 a set of First Aid Gloves on her - keeping the meat-shield in the game.
Terry and Jackie (for whatever reasons) want to "chip in" on part of the replacement cost...

How the heck do we figure this?

Pretty much the same way we do Jo's ressurection?
Who get's the money? Or are they buying 1/2 a set of First Aid Gloves and giving them to Fred to replace the 1/2 he "spent"... Do we need rules to pay for PARTS of magic items?
Just call it the Michael Jackson clause

Some author needs to include this on a chronical... Maybe recovered of a bard named Jachael Mickson...

Partial First Aid gloves - half used....

5/5 5/55/55/5

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Whoaaaaa.

The discussion is "We'd like some ability to split an items cost". "They're going to make splitting the cost mandatory" is somewhere between a slippery slope with rocket boots and an entirely different conversation.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sin of Asmodeus wrote:
Don't kill someone's fun, or great full attitude by billing them later.

Huh... if only there was a way to not kill their grateful attitude, if only there was a single sentence you could say that would absolve them of all debt... maybe something like: "No thanks, keep your money."

An optional repayment system has ZERO impact on situations like this, heck, turning down the money might make it look like an even greater show of generosity.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The discussion is "We'd like some ability to split an items cost". "They're going to make splitting the cost mandatory" is somewhere between a slippery slope with rocket boots and an entirely different conversation.

Thank you. This discussion has gotten massively off track. Other than GM Lamplighter, no one is advocating mandatory restitution.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Hiruma Kai wrote:
Given there is a distinction between making reimbursement optional or mandatory in this thread, I am making the point that making it "optional" by the rules is going to make it "mandatory" in the eyes of many players, and the only way it will not be mandatory is with arguing or bad feelings.

Yes, this is true, in much the same way that it's effectively mandatory to spend your first two PP on a Wand of CLW now.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElyasRavenwood wrote:


I would let the PC "use" his breath of life scroll to save another PC from death. Then at the end of the scenario I would ask the player of PC who was saved from death, to deduct the cost of a breath of life scroll from his/her gold as if they had "bought" one. I would then ask the first Player who kindly stepped up to use his breath of life scroll to keep his scroll as 'unused". In essence we would "ret con" that the player whose character who would have died, had brought a scroll of breath of life after all.

What do you do in the case that:

a) Previously almost dead character doesn't have the fame to acquire a Breath of Life scroll?
b) Previously almost dead character doesn't have the gold to afford a Breath of Life scroll?
c) Previously almost dead character says "no"?

These questions will arise if this rule idea were to be implemented officially.

My personal preference would be that, if they were able AND willing, the beneficiary of such aid would be allowed to replace said aid. They would have to buy the same item that was used on them (with whatever discounts or added costs their character incurs) and be allowed to transfer those items only.

Shadow Lodge

Captain Tally-Ho! wrote:

What do you do in the case that:

a) Previously almost dead character doesn't have the fame to acquire a Breath of Life scroll?
b) Previously almost dead character doesn't have the gold to afford a Breath of Life scroll?
c) Previously almost dead character says "no"?

These questions will arise if this rule idea were to be implemented officially.

a) Exactly what happens now (Nothing)

b) Exactly what happens now (Nothing)
c) Exactly what happens now (Nothing, although the player is being a bit of a jerk)

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:
Other than GM Lamplighter, no one is advocating mandatory restitution.

No, the other side is warning that restitution will often become mandatory in the eyes of the community.

Much like rknop points out spending your first 2PP on cure wands has.

Edit: Not sure why you are calling out GM Lamplighter, who only has one post I can see here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:
Captain Tally-Ho! wrote:

What do you do in the case that:

a) Previously almost dead character doesn't have the fame to acquire a Breath of Life scroll?
b) Previously almost dead character doesn't have the gold to afford a Breath of Life scroll?
c) Previously almost dead character says "no"?

These questions will arise if this rule idea were to be implemented officially.

a) Exactly what happens now (Nothing)

b) Exactly what happens now (Nothing)
c) Exactly what happens now (Nothing, although the player is being a bit of a jerk)

I'll point out in option C, something different did happen. You now consider the player a bit of a jerk. Where as before there was no argument or even discussion on the matter.

How is it not mandatory via peer pressure, when everyone at the table thinks you are a jerk for saying "No"?

Sovereign Court 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't think the option for restitution makes it any more likely someone will be a jerk.

If Mr. Scroll-Miser wasn't going to offer his scroll up without repayment in the first place, Joey Poor-choices would just be dead. Now Joey has an option to pay for BoL in the middle of a scenario (so long as someone has made that initial investment). People who wish to be generous can do so at their option.

I don't think it is a terrible thing for restitution to be de facto mandatory. Generous players can decline repayment, and reckless players can expect more aid from the well-prepared-but-stingy.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
No, the other side is warning that restitution will often become mandatory in the eyes of the community.
Hiruma Kai wrote:
How is it not mandatory via peer pressure, when everyone at the table thinks you are a jerk for saying "No"?

No, it won't become mandatory, it will never become mandatory. You always have the right to say no. There's a huge difference between "social convention" and written rule. Allowing everyone a chance to shine during the mission is a social convention, but it doesn't stop me from bringing in a powerful PC and soloing every encounter. It's a good idea to do, but no one is twisting your arm. Many people spend their first 2pp on a wand of healing because it's a social convention, that demonstrates respect for your comrade's resources, not because it's required.

People are trying to frame voluntary restitution as mandatory, then hoping the arguments against it being mandatory will still hold water. Unfortunately every single anti-restitution argument falls apart when you remember every player has the right to say No.

As I've seen them, there have been four substantive arguments against the system, allow me to demonstrate how they completely fall apart under scrutiny.
1) What if I can't afford it? Then say no. If a player is angry because you don't have the resources to pay them back, then that's their problem.

2) What if I want the warm fuzzy feeling I get from helping someone without recompense? Then say no. You don't have to accept their money.

3) What if I don't want to pay them back? Then say no. It's a slap in the face to the other player, but you're free to do it.

4)What if I don't want to spend resources to help another player? Then don't. This has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion. I happen to believe withholding critical aid violates the "cooperate" tenant of the Society, but there's nothing in the rules preventing you from doing it. I believe that, if anything, the rule would reduce instances of this sort of behavior, because players aren't expected to help each other out of the goodness of their hearts.

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Edit: Not sure why you are calling out GM Lamplighter, who only has one post I can see here.

Yes, and his one post is the only one in the entire thread saying it should be mandatory.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Organized Play Coordinator

7 people marked this as a favorite.

catching up on the thread

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Disk Elemental wrote:
No, it won't become mandatory, it will never become mandatory.

Just like your own CLW wand isn't.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Just like your own CLW wand isn't.

Exactly. Not providing your own healing is inconsiderate to your teammates, but it's not required.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not according to the discussions I've seen around here.

The Exchange 5/5 Venture-Agent, Kentucky—Lexington

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
I'm more likely to buy a scroll of Breath of Life if I know I can be reimbursed for it if I use it on someone else. If it's all because of altruism, well, then I've got better things to spend my money on.

I think this is true also.

The item owner should be in control of whether or not another player uses the item and if used whether or not reimbursement is required.

If the player that used it changes their mind, the GM enforces the replacement by writing the purchase on the player's sheet that used the item. The player that owned the item doesn't make any notes on their sheet, they started with 1 breath of life scroll and ended with 1 breath of life scroll.

The Exchange 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

6 people marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
I haven't yet refused to help someone with a raise cost but I can certainly envisage situations where I would.

I have, twice.

Details:
The general expectations where I have played are that if you can raise yourself in any fashion without selling gear, you do so. If not, other players consider chipping in. One time I wouldn't necessarily call it "refusing." There were two deaths - one of them mine. I had the prestige and money to deal with my raise and negative levels without aid so I did so. The rest of the table chipped in so the other player wouldn't have to sell gear for his raise but I didn't as I was already "spending more" than the others. I would have chipped in if needed but it wasn't.

The other time - yeah - that was a flat-out refusal. After a TPK at about level 4 or 5 we all raised ourselves except one character, who didn't have the money or any prestige. We were pretty much all poor and out of prestige, but we figured if he sold everything and we all spent ourselves broke he could come back - with two negative levels. The others were reluctantly willing to do it but I wasn't. Why? He was the major reason for the TPK. He kept making decisions that almost looked like they were designed to hurt the party. Not out of maliciousness as far as I could tell, though. I didn't feel it was fair to the rest of us to be in a situation where we wouldn't be able to recover from a death just to bring back a naked 4th-level paladin with two negative levels. Who hadn't changed as the session went on and people pointed out where his actions were hurting the group and probably would cause problems for the next group.

I nearly didn't pay for another raise as well. A 3rd level character died (legitimately, it wasn't shennanigans or out-of-character targeting) and the player threw a tantrum. "I can't believe you killed my character! That's not fair! Etc." He had an absolutely horrible attitude about it and kept complaining through the rest of the scenario. That attitude (from a pretty experienced player, I should add) is what made me want to not contribute. I did end up contributing but only because everyone else was and I didn't feel it was fair to make the other survivors pay an extra 250gp each because I thought the *other* guy was being a jerk.

So pretty much it all comes down to player attitude for me.

And then there is the other side of the coin. I was preparing to get myself raised after a scenario and one of the other players - who I'd never met before that weekend - said "I'm going to pay for your raise and restorations." "No need," I replied, "I don't have 16 PP but I do have the gold to do it without having to sell anything." "I insist. You died protecting my character and he would have died if you hadn't run out to save him." (Factually accurate statement.) "Possibly even needing a resurrection. My character is grateful beyond words and will arrange for your raise dead and the first restoration immediately. It's the least I can do and there's nothing you can do about it because you're dead." I ended up letting him do those and doing the second restoration myself. That was one of those moments that show you just how great other people can be.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

Hey guys. Lets keep this civil and constructive please. I would like to see this issue possibly improved, and that won't happen if Chris has to lock the thread.

skimming until I have time to reread in depth and give an informed and considered opinion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't read a lot of the posts, so I may be echoing someone else's opinion:

1) TOTALLY in favor of characters having the option of replacing consumables they've been given. I think the the only caveat is with classes who can craft. If an alchemist craft's an antitoxin, gives it to another character and then the character buys one in return, the alchemist cannot be allowed to sell it for profit. But I think this can be governed by the honor system.

2) TOTALLY in favor of characters having the option of replacing consumables used up by other party members. If one player is providing all the potions of Darkvision and Fly and See Invisibility, I don't have a problem with party members chipping in to replace the use of those items, or not.

One caveat is that parties will become a little stronger because people will more likely use up their consumables, knowing that they might be partially compensated.

Another caveat is that it might put social pressure on players to have their characters chip in if everyone else is doing it. I can live with that. The Society is supposed to cooperate.

As long as none of this is mandatory, I am very open to the idea. I do agree that characters are not allowed to profit from this in any manner and this is simply a system for reducing the costs or compensating those who incur them.

That all having been said, I will put my faith in John Compton & Co. to make the right decision, no matter what it is and abide by that ruling. I think the PFS staff has done an amazing job of handling these types of issues and I have full faith and confidence in them moving forward.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hiruma Kai wrote:

player to PFS gets on earning their first 2 PP? "Go buy a CLW wand." Why? Because we expect people to pay for their own healing/buffs.

I thought that more had to do with the fact that no spellcaster at that level can keep a player up at that level range and that you can potentially burn through an entire wand in the worst cases.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Hiruma Kai wrote:

player to PFS gets on earning their first 2 PP? "Go buy a CLW wand." Why? Because we expect people to pay for their own healing/buffs.

I thought that more had to do with the fact that no spellcaster at that level can keep a player up at that level range and that you can potentially burn through an entire wand in the worst cases.

It does (or to be more accurate not having a caster with heals to begin with). But players (battle clerics, warpriests, etc) have turned it into a personal attack on their right not to have to heal you. In other words, if you don't have a CLW wand, then a minority of players (and even GMs) will label you as a moocher and insist you are not entitled to healing and that you are oppressing their right to play their character as they see fit (because they view it as your expecting them to heal you.)

Then, in the middle of that eight page discussion, add a single poster who insists it's the cleric's job to provide "healz" and you have a powder keg.

Fun.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Really, I just don't want to expand the argument of 'you need to provide your own wand' to 'you need to repay my use of consumables on your behalf'.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
If an alchemist craft's an antitoxin, gives it to another character and then the character buys one in return, the alchemist cannot be allowed to sell it for profit. But I think this can be governed by the honor system.

I don't think this is a problem with the proposed "Replace a one use consumable with an exact copy" method (as noted by James Risner's post above). This means the owner's ITS sheet and Chronicle sheets are not touched. The payee simply notes the gold expenditure on their chronical sheet/ITS (as suggested by James Risner). This method ensures wealth transfer cannot occur, and that people can easily use consumables bought with PP as well as discounts without any worry.

N N 959 wrote:


2) TOTALLY in favor of characters having the option of replacing consumables used up by other party members. If one player is providing all the potions of dark vision and Fly and See Invisibility, I don't have a problem with part members chipping in to replace the use of those items.

This is very good point. Can the party reimburse any single use consumable? Even ones used by the owner on the owner?

Consider a martial melee party, unable to damage a flying enemy with ranged weapons (say because of DR/Magic), but one prepared person brought a potion of fly, or even a lowly oil of magic weapon to use on their sling, and proceeds to defeat the enemy. Can the party reimburse those consumables, even though they were not used on a different player?

How do people feel that would affect social expectations at the table if any consumable could have its cost paid for by the group or another player?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm concerned that people who would be trying to reimburse the other player don't have the additional resource to do so. I know sources for character options often gets put by the wayside and I feel this situation is compounding the problem.

One player will use their consumable to help another player. The other player will try and buy that consumable again for the player but not have the resource and suddenly either need to purchase it to make their character legal or break the rules of the campaign. If you allow gold instead it fixes the issue but suddenly creates many more where effectively it is creating trade and potential for the person with the consumable to abuse it.

This entire issue becomes further compounded when this becomes the unwritten expectation that players will reimburse you because they can. Does the player break the rules and buy the item without the resource or do they simply not do so and upset the the other player? The obvious answer is don't break the rules but in practice this seems to happen from examples given.

I think it is important to simply reinforce the rules we have in place now if people have been ignoring them. Don't create new potential for trade or expectations of reimbursement which can lead to player disagreement.

Shadow Lodge 1/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

As has been pointed out before...

We already have a Community Rule that you MUST have a wand of healing.

Turning an Option in to a Compulsory action.

~

I played in a game not to long ago with my Alchemist, who through a bad roll injured a fellow PC, the player then demanded I use a Wand of heals on his PC. My alchemist hadn't bought one yet, and I got to have a mini lecture on the "correct" way to play.

~

If it becomes an Option, it WILL become a REQUIREMENT. This would be bad for Organised Play.

The Exchange 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The extreme:
Player A: "OK, I used a scroll of remove paralysis on you during that fight. That costs 150 gp."
Player B: "Thanks, I guess."
A: "Aren't you going to pay me back?"
B: "No, I didn't ask you to do that and I probably would have made my save next round."
A: "BUT THAT COST ME MONEY!"
B: "I DIDN'T ASK YOU TO DO IT!

The more likely:
Player A: "OK, I used a scroll of communal protection from energy during that fight. That costs 700 gp, which comes to 175 gp each."
Player B: "Thanks, I guess."
Player C: "Around here we always pay back someone who uses resources on you."
Player B: "Uh, but I didn't really need him to cast it."
Player D: "Are you not going to be a team player?"

The steady state I fear:
Player A: "My knowledge check lets me know that thing has a grab attack. I'll go ahead and pull out a scroll of freedom of movement and cast it on the fighter."
Player B: "Sigh. OK, 700 gp at the end of the scenario."

5/5 5/55/55/5

CN_Minus wrote:


The only examples I can give are anecdotal, but most conventions I go to have people who refuse to heal those who lack a wand.

Including the newbies or just the people that should know better?

If the latter i'm really not surprised. At a convention there's no chance/expectation of reciprocity.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Including the newbies or just the people that should know better?

If the latter i'm really not surprised. At a convention there's no chance/expectation of reciprocity.

Ironically, the new players are much, much more altruistic when it comes to sharing resources and expecting nothing in return. It's the veterans who tend to have a mental block against "lowering their WBL on purpose, man.

To be fair, I don't really like sharing with people who should know how to handle their own healing. I'm glad to help newer players, but at some point you really should become more self-sufficient.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

I have been vilified for not healing people who make stupid in game decisions in the past.

Not really looking forward to the uproar when I refuse to reimburse someone for a consumable that I don't ask for is used on me.

Or if I choose not to use a consumable even if they agree to pay if they make stupid decisions.

And by the way, I have refused to heal my own son at a pfs table, and refused to chip in for his raise dead.

3/5

Jessex wrote:
Last night my seeker wizard had need of a way to reverse petrification. One of his party members used a stone salve on him. 4k g.p. even at seeker level is a steep cost and I really do want to pay him back. Now I could have my wizard cast various spells on him with pricey material components for free until the debt is paid off but wouldn't it be simpler if I could just replace his stone salve?

What if the scenario isn't someplace where you can purchase a 4k g.p. item if you wanted to?

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

Mulgar wrote:

I have been vilified for not healing people who make stupid in game decisions in the past.

That is because arguably what you are saying is that you don't care if you complete the scenario or not which in of itself is kind of weird. Resurrection is a completely different thing but healing is kind of a weird thing to cross the line at.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Tennessee—Memphis aka Mulgar

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Mulgar wrote:

I have been vilified for not healing people who make stupid in game decisions in the past.

That is because arguably what you are saying is that you don't care if you complete the scenario or not which in of itself is kind of weird. Resurrection is a completely different thing but healing is kind of a weird thing to cross the line at.

I wouldn't use MY resources to heal him. Other people then decided to heal him, but they did not offer to heal UNTIL I refused.

3/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think this is a good idea for all the reasons previously discussed. If it were implemented, however, it should be restricted. Perhaps only to items that remove a condition that would need to be cleared at the end of the scenario anyway? Scrolls of restoration, breath of life, raise dead, etc.

51 to 100 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Sharing consumables (PFS Rules Change?) All Messageboards