|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. I didn't expect this to blow up so much so quickly. I had no idea I had the power to summon flames this way. I must be a flame oracle! Praise Sarenrae!!!
So two comments.
First, I want to respond to a comment, but it's slightly off topic, so I'll put it in spoilers to make it easier to keep the off topic stuff separate from the main conversation.
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.
I've never heard of this. Any time a PC has died at any table where I've played, I've always offered to chip in for the Raise Dead and/or Restorations. Whether or not the player could pay for it him/herself doesn't enter into it, though that often comes up as we discuss details.
For instance, the last time a PC died at one of my tables, he declined the offers to help him pay for the raise and just spent the prestige to do it himself. I think the rest of us split the cost of the Restorations.
Second, and back to the main topic at hand. It seems there's a lot of people worrying about the expectation of payback for all consumables becoming socially mandatory, even if it's not rules mandatory. I can see their point.
So here's an alternative suggestion for how to make a change in this. It seems that the main reason this conversation keeps coming up is people wanting to pay others back for using scrolls of Breathe of Life on them. What if we just make a rules change to make that possible, but leave all other consumables out of it?
In other words, the rules currently say you can only split costs on getting someone raised from the dead. Also, when you buy spellcasting services, those spells don't have to be cast on yourself, so you can help each other out on condition removal and Restorations after a scenario. This new suggestion is to just add scrolls of Breathe of Life to the list of things that party members can pool resources for, but this can ONLY be done to replace such a scroll that was cast during the course of the adventure.
Maybe try that out for a year, and if it goes well, then ask the player base if they'd want to expand it to other scrolls/potions that remove permanent conditions. But don't expand it to all consumables, for the reasons discussed in this thread so far.
What do you all think?
|
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'.
I pretty much agree with this.
I'm against allowing repayment of used consumables. Either you are cooperating and use your consumables as necessary to succeed at a mission, or you don't. At some point, those who refuse to use them for the good of the team, will have the team stop using consumables on them as well.
Its a self-correcting circumstance.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm relatively new here, so mileage may vary.
In a different campaign, there was 'free wealth transfer' rules.
It became a huge odoriferous mess when some enterprising individuals decided to 'keep transferring the wealth' until one person had an immense stockpile, and then they 'played the markets' with individuals who had skills, etc.
Pathfinder Society is not that other campaign.
Looking at my characters, I can only see one that would be adverse to 'paying back' someone a significant amount at the moment, and the only reason he'd be adverse to it is because he's trying desperately (at personal mental health and cost) to save money to liberate someone from storage.
That being said, he's both bought expendables (cost of being a Pathfinder).
My -1 (At L9)keeps running into things he *simply had not encountered* during his time in the Society, so he's constantly finding new things that he'd be more than willing to reimburse folks for.
The concern that it would become a 'social expectation' like a PFS SI CLW MK I is daunting, though.
Could PP be used to cover the purchase (that would be a rules change of a different flavor, of course) of expendables to help prevent the onus of cash-tax?
It might be rough for some of my characters financially, but I would like to be able to pay back my debts -- and 'be more prepared next time' isn't a good resolution in my gut, it makes me feel like a mooch.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
T
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."
The following seems MUCH more likely to me :
Player A: "My knowledge check lets me know that thing has a grab attack. I have a scroll of freedom of movement that I'm willing to use. Anybody want it?
Player B: "Yes please"
Sometimes (quite possibly very often) with the addition
"Oh, and remind me to reimburse you for that when I get the chance"
I agree that it might become expected to reimburse people for consumables used but I think that would happen ONLY with player permission/request that the consumable be used.
In other words, the rules currently say you can only split costs on getting someone raised from the dead. Also, when you buy spellcasting services, those spells don't have to be cast on yourself, so you can help each other out on condition removal and Restorations after a scenario. This new suggestion is to just add scrolls of Breathe of Life to the list of things that party members can pool resources for, but this can ONLY be done to replace such a scroll that was cast during the course of the adventure.
It is an interesting suggestion. As you say, spellcasting services (explicitly out of combat) can be purchased by anyone, with a target of anyone. Limiting pooling resources to repaying one time consumables used to clear conditions which must be cleared by the end of the scenario (such as dead) means the afflicted character was going to have to pay for it one way or another.
The only minor issue I can see is scrolls are more expensive than spellcasting services. On the other hand Breath of Life is only useful in scroll form on an adventure, not from spell casting services (unless you've got a 14th level Skald or higher with you - but then they can cast Breath of Life anyways). And it is certainly cheaper than a Raise Dead cast back at town which the party can already pool for.
I'd be tentatively OK with making Breath of Life scrolls a resource the entire party can chip in for.
I will point out a similar result (although not identical) can already happen within the current rule set by simply asking at the beginning of an adventure if everyone has a Breath of Life scroll, remind them to buy it if not, and finally hand it to a caster or UMD user.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pay it forward, move on.
Someone once breath of life'd one of my characters with their own gloves. Now, that character (and two of my others) have gloves.
Mandatory (or mandatory via peer pressure) reimbursement is a bad idea.
HOWEVER...
That expectation of 'paying it forward' is the very crux of the discussion, I suspect.
No one is altruistic enough to spend ALL of their coin mission after mission with no quid pro quo if they are letting their gear 'age out' to get said needed consumables.
After a certain point, even, they might become the very liability by 'giving too much' and not 'getting anything in return'.
Should a melee (for sake of example) who has to spend on their equipment to keep it top-notch buy the same amount of 'pay it forward' as a caster who doesn't have to spend much in the way of consumables?
And as far as First Aid gloves go, that's a pricey investment for new characters that may not have the source material to have 'access' to them.
A well-timed BoL or First Aid Glove can save the party a lot of money. But not everyone is aware of them. Or has the budget for them.
Should there be a 'stipend' that characters pay for 'consumables' that's a portion of gold earned in each scenario, whether or not they want to?
That sounds like a bit too much of a slippery slope?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Count me amongst those who support the option of reimbursing used consumables.
While it may become an expectation, I am not sure that is totally a bad thing. I also think it will have the effect of getting more consumables used in the game.
Items with charges should not be reimbursable unless the entire item is used on a player in a single session. This will negate some of the wealth transfer concerns.
|
| 1 person 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'.I pretty much agree with this.
I'm against allowing repayment of used consumables. Either you are cooperating and use your consumables as necessary to succeed at a mission, or you don't. At some point, those who refuse to use them for the good of the team, will have the team stop using consumables on them as well.
Its a self-correcting circumstance.
Just so opinions for and against are counted properly, I'll just throw out a, "I can't believe I agree with Andy" and leave it at that.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it is made optional, and you decide to pass on the option, you are accused of breaking the "don't be a dick" rule, thus really not making it optional anymore but mandatory.
There are a lot of conflated concepts being simultaneously discussed.
Breaking them down:
- A) I have an item, I use the item, thus forcing the recipient to repay.
- B) I have an item, I offer to use the item without discussing repay, then I expect repayment.
- C) I have an item purchased for my use, I offer it up if they want it with the expectation it will be replaced. They agree but renege.
- D) I have an item purchased for my use, I offer it up if they want it with the expectation it will be replaced. The GM enforces the contract to prevent reneging.
A little feedback on each model from me, and others are welcome to comment.
A) Avoid at all cost, will be a frequent "don't be a jerk" violation breeding ground.
B) Avoid also, same reason: "don't be a jerk" risk.
C) Avoid, this has happened to me. I've been at a table where bad decisions of the table caused death of a player (other than me) and only the dead character and I followed through with the offer to help raise dead. Don't say you are going to do something then not do it, less you be a "jerk" in my opinion.
D) Best fit. It's my consumable. If I want to use it, fine. If I'd rather have it replaced if used, I'm not being a jerk. I don't have to use it. If you have a problem with me owning the item and not using it, you might be the jerk in the equation.
|
I'm of the opinion that those that don't plan for imminent death contingency accept the cost of that decision.
This is me. I have not once bought a BoL scroll. In fact the only character of mine that has access to BoL is my cleric. And when ever I sit down to play him the first words out of someone's mouth are, "Do you have BoL?" Sometimes I like fookin with players and answer "No" just to see their reaction. It is not pretty.
If my character dies, s/he dies. It is a fact of the game and one of which I am accepting. I don't expect someone else to use their BoL scroll on me, nor do I ask for them to use one. If someone wants to, great! If not, shoo, I understand and I pay for the raise dead myself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D) I have an item purchased for my use, I offer it up if they want it with the expectation it will be replaced. The GM enforces the contract to prevent reneging.
This sounds like the best fit to me too.
I expect it needs to be resolved within the session (like a PC death, disease, or similar) and it needs to be a like-for-like replacement (the person who loaned the item is no better or worse off than they were before they loaned it out).
If there is a suspicion that this could lead to abuse (the 'pack mule' PC in a regular group, who carries one of everything in the expectation that the group is unlikely to need more) then this could be restricted to certain items: only potions/scrolls, only certain spells (breath of life, lesser restoration).
|
Pay it forward, move on.
Someone once breath of life'd one of my characters with their own gloves. Now, that character (and two of my others) have gloves.
Mandatory (or mandatory via peer pressure) reimbursement is a bad idea.
HOWEVER...
That expectation of 'paying it forward' is the very crux of the discussion, I suspect.
No one is altruistic enough to spend ALL of their coin mission after mission with no quid pro quo if they are letting their gear 'age out' to get said needed consumables.
After a certain point, even, they might become the very liability by 'giving too much' and not 'getting anything in return'.
Should a melee (for sake of example) who has to spend on their equipment to keep it top-notch buy the same amount of 'pay it forward' as a caster who doesn't have to spend much in the way of consumables?
And as far as First Aid gloves go, that's a pricey investment for new characters that may not have the source material to have 'access' to them.
A well-timed BoL or First Aid Glove can save the party a lot of money. But not everyone is aware of them. Or has the budget for them.
Should there be a 'stipend' that characters pay for 'consumables' that's a portion of gold earned in each scenario, whether or not they want to?
That sounds like a bit too much of a slippery slope?
Take it to its trollface extreme.
Someone is going to shill out more for expensive expendables just to force other people to pay him back. And likely have a trollface grin while he chuckles, "I could help you, but..."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.If you *always* come down to that decision, and *never* make the altruistic decision, then you're violating the "Cooperate" tenet of the Pathfinder Society motto.
That's utterly ridiculous and just an asinine comment to make. I honestly can't believe this comment is in anyway a serious comment.
Me buying anything that betters my character(s) is better for the party.
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.
This is exactly my point when I first made the comment. This is clearly and obviously against the rules. I'm sure you already knew this. But as I stated, some GMs do it anyways. So the rule needs to be revisited or reinforced.
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.
This could be a very good compromise.
For people worrying about wealth growth, the only time this has been mentioned is that it's a bad thing. No one is suggesting that you give them money. The suggestion is to replace the consumable.
Someone also mentioned that "what if they don't have the source to replace the item from?" This is a non-issue. Player A had the source. It's been stated many times that you're allowed to use other player's sources at the table. Normally this is in the context, of "I only ever play with this one person so I'm using his books." But in this case Player B simply uses it to buy the item that's already been expended so it doesn't matter if Player B has the source going forward because the item has already been expended.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
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.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.
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.
Well truth be told most of the people claiming its a community thing is wrong. Its kind of a weird game hack that 4th edition actually implemented and I understand why people would get upset by people not doing it. There just is a weird fervent nature to it that is really just off putting and its going to kill off organized play.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a proponent of having the ability to replace a consumable used, especially in situations like "hey, I have a pair of first aid gloves and so does everyone else, but the 'who is standing where lottery' means that my gloves can't get to me in time, why don't we swap?" sort of thing comes up that doesn't require GM cheating.
I can understand concerns regarding WBL or that the culture of PFS will shift towards an expectation of repayment for everything, however.
I think the only workable answer (other than retaining the status quo which encourages sloppy play, of course) would be some sort of way to limit the way the replacement of consumables can be handled.
... though now that I'm typing this, this topic is starting to sound strangely familiar for some reason...
|
|
Someone also mentioned that "what if they don't have the source to replace the item from?" This is a non-issue. Player A had the source. It's been stated many times that you're allowed to use other player's sources at the table. Normally this is in the context, of "I only ever play with this one person so I'm using his books." But in this case Player B simply uses it to buy the item that's already been expended so it doesn't matter if Player B has the source going forward because the item has already been expended.
It isn't just 'normally' it is always the only case where you are supposed to be allowed to beyond members of the same household (not that this couldn't be changed to be more inclusive).
It also is very difficult to adjudicate repayment of partial consumables such as charged items. Most likely these would have to be disallowed. First aid gloves gloves are 4,500 for the whole thing but you wouldn't want to have to buy the owner an entire new pair if they used half the item's charges.
Echoing some other ideas I also don't like the idea of the pack-mule character who has everything the party needs but never has to accept the drawbacks of doing so. While they have to pay the upfront cost to obtain the items they never suffer the real costs because it is distributed among the rest of the party. It means a lot of utility for the entire party with no thought of resource management on the individual level.
I think the current rules work well and are very easy to understand.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Echoing some other ideas I also don't like the idea of the pack-mule character who has everything the party needs but never has to accept the drawbacks of doing so. While they have to pay the upfront cost to obtain the items they never suffer the real costs because it is distributed among the rest of the party. It means a lot of utility for the entire party with no thought of resource management on the individual level.
I don't understand this comment at all. There's definitely a drawback of loading up on consumables. All that money is no longer available for other things like armor, weapons, cloak of resistance, etc, because it's tied up in your consumables.
|
Although, personally I'd be in favor of mandatory reimbursement - why should I save a PC who isn't willing to be prepared in the first place?
Yeah - I had a session with a barbarian who had an AC of 12ish (had 1 level of wizard so unarmored - aiming of Eldrich Knight) and literally refused to spend 2PP on a wand of Cure Light because he was saving up for a rez. He had no healing at all, but he expected to wade into combat and have me burn my charges healing him.
|
|
It isn't just 'normally' it is always the only case where you are supposed to be allowed to beyond members of the same household (not that this couldn't be changed to be more inclusive).
In spoiler for large faq quote.
A player must have a physical copy of the Additional Resource in question, a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of the book, or a printout of the relevant pages from a name-watermarked PDF, as well as provide access electronically or a physical copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list, as advised in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
A print out is not a photocopy. It is exactly what it advises. It is a print out from a watermarked PDF that, when printed, shows the name of the person (and their email) on the top or bottom of the page. A photocopy of a physical book that does not show a watermark does not fulfill the requirement. This includes a photocopy of a book you borrowed from a friend, checked out of a library, or any other copy you obtained and photocopied or scanned pages from.
If a family member, significant other, or other members of the same household living together (such as college room mates) are playing at the same table, they may share the same resources instead of having duplicates of the same resource at the same table. If it is a group of friends that always plays together at the same table, as long as there is at least one sourcebook that covers each rule for every character at the table, it fulfills the requirement. For example, if they all play Chelaxian characters and utilize rules from the Cheliax book, and they are all playing at the same table, then they only need one Cheliax book at the table, and that book can be either physical or an electronic, watermarked copy. However, if they are playing at different tables, each person at a different table will need a physical copy, a PDF copy, or a printed watermarked copy of the relevant pages with them, that covers anything they choose to utilize in the build of their charactert. And if it needs to be clarified, watermarked PDFs may not be distributed electronically by anyone. If two members of the same household wish to share a PDF, and find themselves playing at separate tables, one can utilize an electronic version on an iPad or similar item, while the other utilizes a printed watermarked copy.
A screenshot of your downloads page, coupled with links to the appropriate PRD pages would cover both purposes if you choose to utilize such a method.
Hero Lab, or any other form of electronic character builder, is not a legal source to fulfill any of the above requirements. Electronic character builders are tools to assist participants in a more streamlined and efficient way to build a character.
It's pretty plain that this would pertain in this case, that I can let someone at my table use a consumable from a source I own while we're at the same table. Unless you want to go to the full extent of your counter point and say that something like anything used by a player doesn't have an effect on that player unless they own the source, which of course is equally ridiculous.
|
|
Echoing some other ideas I also don't like the idea of the pack-mule character who has everything the party needs but never has to accept the drawbacks of doing so. While they have to pay the upfront cost to obtain the items they never suffer the real costs because it is distributed among the rest of the party. It means a lot of utility for the entire party with no thought of resource management on the individual level.I don't understand this comment at all. There's definitely a drawback of loading up on consumables. All that money is no longer available for other things like armor, weapons, cloak of resistance, etc, because it's tied up in your consumables.
They have all the utility with none of the WBL loss (they haven't lost any of their own items).
It also extends this same utility to every single character at the table who now don't have to use any gold at all on consumables if they choose not to and can delay paying the cost until they successfully complete the scenario and receive gold rather than paying the cost before in preparation. This means you are shifting an entire party's effective wealth by the gold rewarded at the end of the scenario by doing the above.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Echoing some other ideas I also don't like the idea of the pack-mule character who has everything the party needs but never has to accept the drawbacks of doing so. While they have to pay the upfront cost to obtain the items they never suffer the real costs because it is distributed among the rest of the party. It means a lot of utility for the entire party with no thought of resource management on the individual level.I don't understand this comment at all. There's definitely a drawback of loading up on consumables. All that money is no longer available for other things like armor, weapons, cloak of resistance, etc, because it's tied up in your consumables.They have all the utility with none of the WBL loss (they haven't lost any of their own items).
It also extends this same utility to every single character at the table who now don't have to use any gold at all on consumables if they choose not to and can delay paying the cost until they successfully complete the scenario and receive gold rather than paying the cost before in preparation. This means you are shifting an entire party's effective wealth by the gold rewarded at the end of the scenario by doing the above.
Except... someone in the group DID buy it beforehand. Just maybe not the character who got the benefit - which is the same as might happen in a home group.
|
|
It isn't just 'normally' it is always the only case where you are supposed to be allowed to beyond members of the same household (not that this couldn't be changed to be more inclusive).In spoiler for large faq quote.
** spoiler omitted **...
I'm aware of the FAQ. If my post wasn't clear I said:
It isn't just 'normally' it is always the only case ["I only ever play with this one person so I'm using his books."] to be allowed to beyond members of the same household (not that this couldn't be changed to be more inclusive).
I disagree that it is as plain as you make it out to be. Meeting a person for the first time and having them use your resource isn't sufficient for this FAQ as written.
As for your last sentence I have no idea where you got that from or what would make you think that but I would find that equally ridiculous.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except... someone in the group DID buy it beforehand. Just maybe not the character who got the benefit - which is the same as might happen in a home group.They have all the utility with none of the WBL loss (they haven't lost any of their own items).
It also extends this same utility to every single character at the table who now don't have to use any gold at all on consumables if they choose not to and can delay paying the cost until they successfully complete the scenario and receive gold rather than paying the cost before in preparation. This means you are shifting an entire party's effective wealth by the gold rewarded at the end of the scenario by doing the above.
Normal Consumable Timeline of Wealth vs Utility:
Purchase -> Gold Value Lost from WBL -> Benefit of Utility realized
Shared Consumable Timeline of Wealth vs Utility:
Purchase -> Benefit of Utility Realized -> Gold Value Lost from WBL
This shared system delays the actual gold loss until after you have received the benefits. It is a retroactive expenditure made in response to something happening rather than preparation. It means characters don't have to be prepared and can spend more resources on other items while still gaining the benefit delaying the payment until they finish the scenario. The purchase cost is a sunken cost and isn't a factor because you have to do it no matter what.
This is pretty much a credit card for consumable items. I hope this makes sense now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I must confess that some of the comments in this thread are mind blowing. It is amazing to me that players are threatened that a culture of being expected to pay someone back for something they benefited from is some horrible thing. If there was no restriction on replacing consumed items, would anyone be seriously arguing that there should be? If replacement were the default, would players in this thread be insisting that they should not be allowed to replace an item that someone gave them?
As far as complaints that someone used X on my character and I didn't ask for it, PFS simply implements a rule that you can't use any replaceable consumable on a player who doesn't consent OOC.
If I were to look at this from a worst case perspective, I see two possible outcomes:
1) Lettings some players feel like jerks because they don't give up their Potion of X to help another teammate, on account of not being compensated;
versus
2) Letting some players feel like jerks because they chose to use someone's X and they won't pay it back.
For me, #2 is the lessor of two evils by a wide margin.
I think the issue for me is, we want Pathfinder society to be an enjoyable environment. I think people want the rules to lead to the fewest arguments and disagreements at the table as possible, as those reduce the fun people have.
Any time you have something be optional based on player perception, you will run into arguments. As evidence, I point out the fact that we have non-optional rules and we get into disagreements about the interpretation of those all the time on forums...
When you open up the ability for any consumable to be reimbursed by anyone in the party, who gets to say whether the consumable benefited the entire party? If its more than 1 person, you're going to have disagreements.
Take the following situations:
1) Someone uses an Oil of Daylight to let everyone see in deeper darkness
2) Someone uses an Oil of Daylight to let half the party see (2nd level darkness spell and half the party has darkvision)
3) Someone uses a Potion of Darkvision to let someone else see in darkness
4) Someone uses a Potion of Darkvision to let themselves see in darkness and beat the encounter
5) Someone uses a Potion of Darkvision to be more effective as a stealthy character in and out of combat
6) Someone uses a Potion of Darkvision every encounter just in case.
I bet if I ask 6 different people when they would chip in the above cases, you'll get more than one answer on where they draw the line. It would also depend on what other capabilities were at the table, and whether people agreed the consumable actually let them beat it, or if other slower means at their disposal would have worked. Should the Fighter with the Blind-fight feat and a good perception check pitch in to pay for that Oil of Daylight?
Now what happens when those 6 people sit down at the same table spend those consumables, and decide how to reimburse each other at the end? What I'm afraid of is arguments or bad feelings between the players (or GM if she has to step in) because of those differences in interpretation.
If there were an excessive number of arguments at the end of each session regarding who should be paying whom back for which consumable, or there were a large number of players using excessive numbers of consumables and causing those arguments, then yes, I would advocate such a rule.
Admittedly, I don't know for sure that there would be a large number of arguments, but I am extrapolating from the CLW wand social rule and the discussions on the forums. I admit the local play group where I am probably wouldn't have any problems with allowing reimbursement in terms of disagreements. Perhaps I am worried about nothing. However, I want the people who do have to make that decision to take that possibility into account.
I do know I am very glad I'm not the one in charge who has to make the final decision, and respect highly the Pathfinder Society team who does have to make it.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I have with mandatory reimbursement is you can effectively tax other players. Someone goes unconscious. Use a heal scroll (instead of simply stabilizing them). The target has to pay for it even though they had no choice in whether it was used on them.
Is anyone suggesting mandatory reimbursement under ridiculously contrived conditions?
If yes, please quote them.
If not please stop pretending this is a plot to screw people over.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how this is at all contrived. The player using the scroll may have done so with only the best intentions. That doesn't change the fact they would effectively be spending the other player's gold.The problem I have with mandatory reimbursement is you can effectively tax other players. Someone goes unconscious. Use a heal scroll (instead of simply stabilizing them). The target has to pay for it even though they had no choice in whether it was used on them.Is anyone suggesting mandatory reimbursement under ridiculously contrived conditions?
If yes, please quote them.
If not please stop pretending this is a plot to screw people over.
Except that you're straw-manning like crazy. The suggestion isn't to force players to pay for consumables on them, especially if OOC they're against it. It's to ALLOW them to pay for consumables used on them.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how this is at all contrived. The player using the scroll may have done so with only the best intentions. That doesn't change the fact they would effectively be spending the other player's gold.The problem I have with mandatory reimbursement is you can effectively tax other players. Someone goes unconscious. Use a heal scroll (instead of simply stabilizing them). The target has to pay for it even though they had no choice in whether it was used on them.Is anyone suggesting mandatory reimbursement under ridiculously contrived conditions?
If yes, please quote them.
If not please stop pretending this is a plot to screw people over.
No one is talking about mandatory restitutions.
So taking the idea of mandatory restitutions is at least sending it down the slippery slope. You are further adding a bizarre level of idiocy where you overspend on way more than the other player needs, AND on top of that can't/don't ask for the consent of the other player first. This is three steps removed from what anyone is talking about.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This shared system delays the actual gold loss until after you have received the benefits. It is a retroactive expenditure made in response to something happening rather than preparation. It means characters don't have to be prepared and can spend more resources on other items while still gaining the benefit delaying the payment until they finish the scenario. The purchase cost is a sunken cost and isn't a factor because you have to do it no matter what.This is pretty much a credit card for consumable items. I hope this makes sense now.
You are wrong. SOMEONE had to have the consumable before it is used. While it might work as you say for the individual, the group as a whole needs to be prepared. This is the same as would be the case in a home group - as I mentioned above.
I don't see it as a negative that a support character can load up on consumables (using their wealth on consumables rather than gear) and share it out without becoming continuously further behind WBL than their initial purchase put them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 'option' to cover consumables quickly becomes mandatory by peer pressure and quotations of the 'dont be a jerk' rule.
I doubt that would be the case if you didn't want it used either in-character or OOC.
While I can see your argument for general items like the aforementioned Oil of Daylight, I don't really have an issue with peer pressure to get characters to pay for their own major healing items.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The funniest part of this is that everyone is right. All the suggested problems posited about the "other guy's" proposal is exactly what is going to happen. Not necessarily widespread, but this campaign is world-wide. There is a huge swathe of player variations. Would an optional rule become mandatory? In some areas and with some players, yes. Would it improve play? Yes, in some areas. Would some of the more extreme and arguably "straw-man" arguments come to fruition? Yes.
The reality is, some players are jerks and the consumable rules are not not going to change that. Rules do not dictate attitude. IMO, a reimbursement program will not be any more effective at encouraging GoodRightFun than what we already have. Some will disagree and that's okay. As I said, this rule like many others will be embraced differently from region to region. The current "pay it forward" is the most altruistic form of the cooperate tenet.
Another thing to consider is the the inequality in class participation. It could be argued that the fighter who stands in the front and takes the brunt of the damage is saving the squishes from the same damage. They "owe" it to the fighter to help in the healing. He has much less available wealth to devote to all the various "required" consumables because he has expenses (armor, shield, etc) that you don't have. So while my wizard standing in the rear with the backpack full of scrolls, wands, potions, etc. there is some level of expectation that he will use those items on the fighter because that is his role in the party.
In the end, most of the "bad feelings" regarding the use of consumables can be assuaged during character introductions. If everyone knows you are not going to use your stuff to help them, then they can buy their own. IMO, the worst situation is for people to know you have something, but they only find out at their direst need that you won't use it on them. Although it is "weird" situation that two players can buy first aid gloves, trade them, use them, and not be out any of their wealth, while the same two players who don't trade are "screwed." The current rules certainly encourage this type of "loophole," but it does work.
I'm not in favor of it, but one idea that was discussed (and shot down) a few years ago was to allow open transfer of goods between players with the caveat that you could never exceed the wealth you earned. Meaning add up all your gold. That is your wealth "cap" and you could not exceed that, ever. So it would eliminate the goods hording problem of that other campaign.
IMO, the tenet of cooperate is the most important one for the society. I like the way a quid-pro-quo system makes me feel. Adding a repayment program just feels less supportive of cooperation. It is also a self-fulfilling program. If you are the type that refuses to help your fellow agent, that will be revealed during play and you will garner like treatment. The "golden rule" can be a powerful thing. Course, this is just my opinion and YMMV.
|
|
I don't see it as a negative that a support character can load up on consumables (using their wealth on consumables rather than gear) and share it out without becoming continuously further behind WBL than their initial purchase put them.
Consumables are normally balanced around paying for them in advance for the benefit rather than paying for them after having received the benefit.
Your support character in your example never actually loses any WBL if he is reimbursed every time for his item. The item can hardly be called a consumable at all at that point because you always will have it. It return for always having every item he needs for any situation he has paid only the upfront cost and now will always have the benefits on hand every single time.
On top of this I will again emphasis that the loss of gold only occurs at the very end when the other character returns the item. The one purchasing the item has lost nothing. This means every single character in the party can effectively have an entire scenario's worth of extra gold in consumables 'ready' without even buying them. Why would anyone purchase an item in advance when the talking store is traveling beside them and accepts credit for their purchase?
I disagree this rule should be allowed because of these reasons.