|
| 2 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.
I don't think anyone is going to be "forced" to buy a scroll of heal to cure the sniffles.
Other than that.. whats the worst case scenario ? Everyone chips in a few gold pieces for the 750 gp oil of daylight? Someone "has" to pay back the 5k for a breath of life instead of the 8k resurrection?
You can have prior arrangements made with your faction. Surely you can have the same arrangements made with your own party?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm against the proposal, due to extra rules complications.
Examples of potential issues:
Consumables that are limited in purchase (chronicle sheet items, poison, objects that one person has fame to buy but not the other, items with a limited buy amount)
Consumables at different prices for different characters (boons, alchemy, faction card discount)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we have 3 options:
1) Keep things the way they are: Right now there are people who are reluctant to use consumables on others because they will not be reimbursed for them and occasionally you get people who are willing to do this but can become resentful if they feel their generosity is being abused. But for the most part, players have already decided how generous they are going to be and, for the most part, the players are the ones that control that generosity. So they have a fair expectation of the cost to them when they go in.
2) Make a mandatory reimbursement rule: Like 1 above, everyone will still know where they stand when it comes to consumables. There will be a clear expectation and few table arguments aside from some corner cases such as a cleric who could spontaneously cast Cure Moderate Wounds insisting on using a Scroll of Cure Moderate Wounds because he wants save his spells for combat. Unfortunately, either the rules regarding such mandatory reimbursement would be so limited as to be near pointless, or so complex they would be far more of a pain than they are worth as there are just too many variables.
3) Make an optional reimbursement rule: While this may initially increase people’s willingness to spend consumables on others, the moment they run into (or even hear about) an incident of someone refusing to pay someone back for expensive consumables for clearly selfish reasons, that initial willingness is going to start taking a serious hit. So the people who were willing to spend it before without reimbursement will still likely do so, while the people who were on the fence will likely go back to being on the fence after a few bad experiences. Which makes me question whether it will actually have the hoped for beneficial effect making people more willing to share consumables. On top of that, you are likely to see a lot more table arguments regarding reimbursement, frequently at inopportune times, i.e. in the middle of a heated battle. Also, peer pressure will likely reduce the control a player has over their own generosity, which will again generate resentment.
I choose Number 1.
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3) Make an optional reimbursement rule: While this may initially increase people’s willingness to spend consumables on others, the moment they run into (or even hear about) an incident of someone refusing to pay someone back for expensive consumables for clearly selfish reasons, that initial willingness is going to start taking a serious hit. So the people who were willing to spend it before without reimbursement will still likely do so, while the people who were on the fence will likely go back to being on the fence after a few bad experiences. Which makes me question whether it will actually have the hoped for beneficial effect making people more willing to share consumables. On top of that, you are likely to see a lot more table arguments regarding reimbursement, frequently at inopportune times, i.e. in the middle of a heated battle. Also, peer pressure will likely reduce the control a player has over their own generosity, which will again generate resentment.
You can avoid a lot of problems by asking first. If the other party doesn't agree, you still have the option to be generous.
|
|
You can avoid a lot of problems by asking first. If the other party doesn't agree, you still have the option to be generous.
3) Make an optional reimbursement rule: While this may initially increase people’s willingness to spend consumables on others, the moment they run into (or even hear about) an incident of someone refusing to pay someone back for expensive consumables for clearly selfish reasons, that initial willingness is going to start taking a serious hit. So the people who were willing to spend it before without reimbursement will still likely do so, while the people who were on the fence will likely go back to being on the fence after a few bad experiences. Which makes me question whether it will actually have the hoped for beneficial effect making people more willing to share consumables. On top of that, you are likely to see a lot more table arguments regarding reimbursement, frequently at inopportune times, i.e. in the middle of a heated battle. Also, peer pressure will likely reduce the control a player has over their own generosity, which will again generate resentment.
Or it may start a negotiation in the middle of a combat ("How about if I reimburse you for half, instead?"). Which is something that currently doesn't exist. Right now, either I choose to be generous, or I don't. That is because, other than how it may benefit the party or table environment, I have nothing personal to gain. Add in the possibility of personal gain (or at least, no personal loss) and you may see all sorts of wheeling and dealing in the middle of combat. As such, it may actually create MORE of a mercenary environment than we already have, which is the opposite of what the rule is intended to do.
I will also state from a personal level that most of my characters are fairly generous when it comes using consumables for the benefit of the party. I even have a few characters that spent the 4500 on First Aid Gloves knowing full well they would likely only be used on other people's characters. Having a reimbursement rule is not going to change my generosity, but it is likely to create more table arguments. So at least as far as I am concerned, I see no personal benefit.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Real-life question:
How many of you have been out to a dinner with a group where the expectation is that the bill is being divided equally among everyone? As the non-drinker who didn't order the surf-and-turf, you are heavily subsidizing the others.
This isn't something I mind doing with a really tight set of friends or a team I just finished a difficult project with (heck, I may offer to pay the whole bill) but it is something I really resent when it is random coworkers or a new group I just met and got invited to dinner with. If you don't chip in you are the "jerk" and less likely to be invited to other events.
It's not the opportunity to reimburse someone that worries me. In the abstract that's great. It's what happens when reimbursement becomes expected. The dynamic shifts from the giver being a kind and generous person to the receiver being an ungrateful jerk if he refuses to pay. I don't think this will happen everywhere (see Bob's post) but it will happen some places. See the comments about how everyone "should" have a wand of CLW if they want to be healed for a related though not exact parallel.
|
|
So at least as far as I am concerned, I see no personal benefit.You mean other than the fact someone might replace the 4500gp item you used on them
If I had been concerned about that, I would have never bought the Gloves in the first place. While I would still technically benefit, it would not be a benefit that would likely promote greater generosity from me. Remember, what we are trying to accomplish here is not to benefit individual players but to benefit PFS by encouraging cooperative play, so at least in this regard, it has no additional motivation for me.
or that other players might carry consumables that could benefit you as well?
I actually thought about this when I first posted it, and quite frankly, with very few exceptions, I have been satisfied with the generosity of the players I have encountered in PFS. And I would rather rely on people's generous nature than their mercenary nature. I am not convinced appealing to people's more mercenary side would actually create a friendlier gaming environment.
That seems like very real and personal benefit, even if you don't think it has any value.
Since the point is to motivate me to be more generous then a personal benefit that has no value to me is a pointless benefit.
Add in the possibility of personal gain (or at least, no personal loss) and you may see all sorts of wheeling and dealing in the middle of combat.I doubt it. 1) The rule will most likely not allow cash payments, only replacement of what has been consumed.
The rule would have to require a binary choice only, i.e. either they reimburse them in full for an exact replacement, or there is no reimbursement. Any other option would create a negotiable environment.
2) There is no way the rule will allow players to increase their wealth or get back more than what they gave up, so no wheeling and dealing will occur. It's not like the GM has to leave the room when these things are discussed OOC.
I think you underestimate the player bases' ability to find loopholes.
If the current rule was one where replacement was optional, I'm sure we could trot out a parade of horribles on what would happen if replacement was taken away (i.e. move to what we have now). Yet, the game is manageable.
That is actually part of the point. The game is currently manageable. Any change to the rules will require effort. The staff will have to decide how to implement the rule and include it in next printing. Players will have to retrain themselves to cope with the rule changes, etc. So the argument that it is no worse than it is now is not a sufficient argument to change things. There must be a clear benefit.
Right now, a party can contribute to buy a consumable at the start of a mission. I've been in several missions where this happens. Doesn't lead to arguments or fights.
That is because the entire party was involved, not just two players.
I do agree that if everyone sits down and makes an agreement regarding consumables at the beginning of the adventure it will prevent fights later on. But I will also point out that this is a discussion that they did not previously have to have before they started playing, but likely would once this rule came into effect. Thus eating into their table time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the OP was really about lifesaving consumables, specifically BoL scrolls. If we do this for every consumable that can benefit another PC, why not class features? I cast bless, and I'll send you the bill. You can subtract it from the bill you send me based on the number of hp of damage you did to the bad guys before they could attack me. It's all about money.
No, folks: that's the Aspis Consortium you're thinking of.
Pathfinders are supposed to be prepared for anything. The Chronicles are full of tales of solo explorers who go off and survive on their own resources, without a balanced party of specialists backing them up and compensating for their unpreparedness. That's what WE are supposed to be able to do, even if our on-camera time tends to be in larger groups to facilitate the real-world logistics of gaming.
I support allowing reimbursement *if* the item is something you actually have on your person at the time it's used on you by someone else. Then it's a straight trade, noted on Chronicle, and done.
I do NOT support having a gold piece Pandora's box of "whatever item I might need it to be" and being able to just pay a bill afterwards, because that isn't being prepared: that is relying on someone else to be prepared and then just throwing money at your problem.
Mandatory reimbursement solves more problems than it creates IMO, but I'm sure the campaign staff will be able to weigh those things lot better than we can.
|
|
Right now, a party can contribute to buy a consumable at the start of a mission. I've been in several missions where this happens. Doesn't lead to arguments or fights.
Well, it's not legal, so it should lead to an argument with the GM...
There is no way for players to pool their resources to purchase a single item. The only place players can pool resources is in helping with raise dead, removing conditions, and spellcasting services - unless there's another example I'm missing?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think it would be good to be opened up. There may be some logistical issues (such as were brought up by Pirate Rob), but that doesn't mean these issues can't be overcome. If the logistics can be figured, I think the social side of this will be relatively trivial.
In my experience the "buy your own CLW wand" thing has never been a hard rule, and if anyone would refuse to heal my wizard because I didn't bring my own personal wand of CLW to the table, then that is a player problem not a rules one. My wizard spend her first points on a wand of Enlarge Person, not CLW, because EP is a standard combat buff which would otherwise occupy 20-25% of my daily spell slots. I am a 7 str elven wizard. I will not be casting even a single charge of this wand on myself, but I will not be penalising the tank because he didn't think to bring his own wand so that I wouldn't have to waste charges of mine on him.
I bring much more to the table if I am able to bring a variety of things, rather than everyone being forced to double (or quintruple) up on all the basics. If I buy something expensive then it is an investment in the party that I don't get to demand that people repay me for it. But if they want to contribute then I feel it would benefit the game if they were able to do so.
Firstly it allows support characters to run around with a Handy Haversack full of everything you could need (Cold Iron and Good? Here you go: oil of align weapon and a cold iron morningstar. Go nuts big fella.) without that necessarily crippling their WBL. They can stock up consumables that cost several hundred gold each, they can grab the scroll of BoL as soon as they have the prestige to allow it. This might be before the other players can buy it, either due to financial or prestige limitations, but it means there is one available to the party without it being a huge drain on their resources to buy a new one every time someone else carks it.
And, speaking of BoL, consider this: You are fighting a half-orc, which gets taken down to negative hitpoints. Orc ferocity means they get one more round, which they use to kill the barbarian - a lucky crit taking her from positives to below -Con. The barbarian is dead, but the half-orc drops as well and the mission is won. There is absolutely no mission pressure on bringing the barbarian back to life. The only reason to do so would be to save them the thousands of gold and two negative levels. But doing so expends your resources in the BoL scroll. You are spending your expensive scroll in order to save another player money. And as it currently stands they cannot repay you for that cost even if they wanted to. This is basically wealth transfer. The mission was won so it's not even about helping the mission, or party contributions. It's just a flat thing: either you cop the ~1.5k for the price of the scroll, of the barbarian cops 5x that, *but is able to accept donations towards the price*. The barbarian would happily, I'm sure, repay you for the cost of the scroll rather than pay the cost of the raise dead. But that's not an option.
|
|
An interesting side-note: a fighter getting Iron Will is almost getting it for his party more than him. There's plenty of spells that require a will save, and many of them will target the fighter, sure, but some of the most popular ones would be things like Suggestion or Dominate Person, which turn the fighter on the caster they were supposed to be protecting. One could make an argument that this feat is primarily to protect said casters, more than the fighter, and just as much a resource investment as a scroll.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If everyone buys the same thing then the party is weaker and less capable. Everyone at 100% self sufficiency in a game that, at its core, is based on characters complementing each other, not duplicating each other has a name. It's called sub-optimization and will result in more deaths and resource expenditures.
If everyone bought First Aid Gloves or a spring loaded wrist sheath with a scroll of Breath of Life we wouldn't be having this discussion.and they'd be coming back for far less than a raise dead...
does this mean we should assign the cost to the cleric as it's on their spell list...
Yeah - down that way lies madness.
How much is the bard's Inspire Courage worth?
How much is walking down the hallway first worth?
etc.
Class abilities have a rather solid line from expendable items. Let's not blur it.
|
|
An interesting side-note: a fighter getting Iron Will is almost getting it for his party more than him. There's plenty of spells that require a will save, and many of them will target the fighter, sure, but some of the most popular ones would be things like Suggestion or Dominate Person, which turn the fighter on the caster they were supposed to be protecting. One could make an argument that this feat is primarily to protect said casters, more than the fighter, and just as much a resource investment as a scroll.
Heh. I have to admit my Alchemist picked up Iron Will after he almost killed 3 PCs when he got Dominated.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
here's a fun one....
Ms. Paladin goes down.
Mr. Wizard rushes forward and pulls his scroll of Infernal healing. Casts the spell on it... and then asks the Paladin Player to buy a replacement.
That is an easy one. When I play paladins or other characters who would not accept infernal healing I make that very clear at thd beginning of the game.
If a character tried to use infernal healing I'd try to invoke the "don't be a jerk" rule. If that failed, I would never play with that GM or player again. I would ignore any GM who tried to order me to pay the cost.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
so, here's a slightly different wrinkle on this - I guess this would be a PRO to most of the CONs I have posted so far...
I at times play with someone who... is a bit creative with record keeping. Someone I am not going to check their paperwork on... When they say they have XXX, I'm not going to check their ITS to see they have it, and track it back to the Chronicle that they say they bought it on, and then check to see they mark it off now that they have used it.
now, when this someone steps up to burn on my PC the BoL scroll that they just happen to have... this rule would make me feel better about taking it. About having it used on me. Because I know I will pay for it, and track it, and my bookkeeping will reflect it. Even if it didn't exist 5 minutes before...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The party should be a team. Those whose role requires they have the best equipment should be able to obtain it without feeling the need to also pay their share of consumable costs. Those who don't need equipment should pick up the greater share of consumable costs, to justify getting an equal share of the loot. If your primary role is support, being a misc. "have one of everything" kind of guy, then spending up on consumables is part of your thing. But when that means you can't even afford a +1 armour by level 6 because everyone else mooches off your consumables and then spends their share of the loot on a shiney new headband of permanent boosting, and then sends you off to spend your portion on consumables for the next encounter, that's not fair and the support should be able to ask for some kind of monetary contributions. Either the other players give him some of their coin, or he doesn't re-stock that one crucial thing that would have trivialized the next encounter.
Obviously these are somewhat extreme examples, but the amount of grey area means that there needs to be guidelines set by the society to direct player behaviour, and a way for players as a table to come to a mutually agreeable and rules compliant solution.
I feel letting people contribute to having a single scroll of BoL in the cleric's wrist sheath would be something many low level parties would be happy to have as a backup long before they can justify everyone buying one of their own.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Various Statements
Regarding generosity: I will admit that there is a correlation between how wealthy I feel and how generous I am.
Regarding my trepidation about a more mercenary environment: I will refer the following quote to better explain it:
Real-life question:
How many of you have been out to a dinner with a group where the expectation is that the bill is being divided equally among everyone? As the non-drinker who didn't order the surf-and-turf, you are heavily subsidizing the others.
This isn't something I mind doing with a really tight set of friends or a team I just finished a difficult project with (heck, I may offer to pay the whole bill) but it is something I really resent when it is random coworkers or a new group I just met and got invited to dinner with. If you don't chip in you are the "jerk" and less likely to be invited to other events.
It's not the opportunity to reimburse someone that worries me. In the abstract that's great. It's what happens when reimbursement becomes expected. The dynamic shifts from the giver being a kind and generous person to the receiver being an ungrateful jerk if he refuses to pay. I don't think this will happen everywhere (see Bob's post) but it will happen some places. See the comments about how everyone "should" have a wand of CLW if they want to be healed for a related though not exact parallel.
Regarding the point of this rule: You say, to you, it would make PFS feel more like a home game, and I agree that it would. The problem is that PFS is not a home game and as you yourself pointed out with your example of GMs & house rules, there is a limit to how much we should be willing to make it feel that way because of the potential draw backs. I am concerned the draw backs outweigh this benefit here.
I do agree the rule is an improvement, but I question if it is enough of an improvement to warrant the change, especially when there is always the omnipresent possibility of some, as yet, unknown problem arising because of it. The fact that it is better, alone, is not sufficient reason to change the rule. I have a friend I used to play with who was an engineer. He was obsessed with always trying to make things better. He would poke and experiment and house rule and argue for house rules all in the name of trying to make things better. The problem was that frequently they made things worse (because there was a reason they worked the way they did in the first place) and always caused disruption in the game. He was a nice guy, a cooperative player and fun to play with, but his obsession with improving things drove people nuts to the point that many people will no longer play with him. The morale of all of this is that, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And I don’t think the current system is broke.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you know, I've read several posters reference "...Those who don't need equipment..." implying that Martial PCs need more equipment - and thus more money. ????
is it just that they haven't run non-martial PCs?
Just because I run a bard, doesn't mean I don't need an AC boosting item. In fact, getting my AC up is often harder (and more expensive) than that of the PC who can use better armor.
Just because I run a Cleric, doesn't mean I need LESS equipment, or cheaper equipment.
Just because I run a Wizard (or other unarmored spell caster) doesn't mean I don't need items to improve my combat performance.
and I'm getting a bit miffed when people just off-handedly assume that my PC "...should pick up the greater share of consumable costs, to justify getting an equal share of the loot." just because she doesn't "swing a big sword"...
Sorry if that offends you - but I find that view kind of elitist... "Us nobles deserve better armor, we're more important than those peasants...". Maybe I'm showing my Andoran (something I didn't realize I had in me).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
it's year 7...
If everyone bought First Aid Gloves or a spring loaded wrist sheath with a scroll of Breath of Life we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Not actually true... which Breath of Life is within range when needed? ... if the person who is wearing your First Aid Gloves is currently held, but three other people have First Aid Gloves around you, you can't actually just switch after someone brings you back to say "thank you" without CHEAT! ABUSE! labels likely being applied.
Also, for a very long time scrolls were not considered eligible for spring-loaded wrist sheaths by many GMs. (I believe that was only changed/ clarified in the last year or so.)
Part of the argument for a change is to clarify these areas which a "common sense approach" (being able to at least switch out equipment you actually did purchase for this purpose with someone who had identical equipment they used on your behalf) would actually be legal, rather than ABUSE CHEATING BADWRONG FUN.
|
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.
I have to say, for me this is a mic drop of an argument. This would allow some serious leveraging of WBL. An organized play campaign concerned about maintaining a consistent difficulty curve would want to stay far away from that.
I could see *maybe* loosening the rule for Breath of Life only, but anything broader than that is way too open to gaming the system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.....how? How on earth can you game the system like that
I am not sure the problem is gaming the system so much as it might actually make players less prepared. As, instead of people buying consumables they might need, they instead save the money under the assumption that someone else spent their money on the necessary consumables so that they simply had to reimburse them if they turned out to be actually needed. If everyone thinks this way, then no one will have the necessary consumables.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.....how? How on earth can you game the system like thatI am not sure the problem is gaming the system so much as it might actually make players less prepared. As, instead of people buying consumables they might need, they instead save the money under the assumption that someone else spent their money on the necessary consumables so that they simply had to reimburse them if they turned out to be actually needed. If everyone thinks this way, then no one will have the necessary consumables.
The only way that would be true is if enough people were preparing to male up for their slack. This woild be a self correcting problem
|
|
I have to say, for me this is a mic drop of an argument. This would allow some serious leveraging of WBL. An organized play campaign concerned about maintaining a consistent difficulty curve would want to stay far away from that.I don't agree.
1) What Ragoz is arguing against is exactly how it works in a home campaign. The group buys an item and then it is replaced when it is used. That's the benefit of being in a group, you're more prepared and better equipped than if you had to fight everything yourself.
It's not like a home game at all. In a home game, the party agrees to buy 1 (or 2) Scrolls of BOL to give to the Cleric for some potential future use that, over the life of the campaign, is likely to happen. This works because the party is always the same. But in PFS, the party changes every adventure. If a player wants to make sure there is a Scroll of BOL at the table, he has to buy it himself. He can't split the cost 6 ways. That means if everyone wants to be sure there is a Scroll of BOL at the table, you have to buy 6 scrolls total, not just the 1 the party would have to buy in a home game. Not that that isn't how it works now, but if I think I can just buy it off another guy when I need it, I am less likely to buy one in the first place.
|
I've never been in a home game where people are worried about whether some consumable they have is used up by another person. Most of the time, we just give all the appropriate consumables to the appropriate characters because we know they will use it best for the party. So the cleric gets the healing wands and scrolls while the sorcerer gets the magic missile wands and arcane scrolls. And none of those choices is used against them when magic items are divvied up.