Sharing consumables (PFS Rules Change?)

[N N 959]

trollbill wrote:

It's not like a home game at all.

I was referring to Ragoz's assertion that the rule would simulate consumables on a credit card. i.e. You have it available but don't have to pay for it up front.

While I agree that some people may take this as a license to not buy consumable because they think someone else will have them, I am not convinced the majority will respond this way.

In fact, I would argue that when it comes to BoL, I'm less likely to have one under the current system as I don't want to have it used on someone else. I personally believe the lack of replacement is a deterrent to carrying expensive consumables that I might use or be expected to use one someone else.

Under the proposed system, I only have to buy one BoL. I replace it when I use it. Why would I not carry one?

If I carry one, there's a very low probability that I will benefit from it directly. If I'm not a front line character, the probably is probably less than 1/6. True, rezzing someone might save the party and my life, but if I'm a back line character, I may just choose to run if the battle goes south. Potion of Fly is half the cost of BoL.

Under the current system, Librain brought up a great point. At the end of a battle, everyone survives except one guy. Now, I've got to transfer wealth to that individual. I give him 1.5k and he avoids spending any money whatsoever. That doesn't make any sense.

[Azothath]

the problem is more about the next game with a different group, buying and selling at full or partial lots of items... aka trading.

PFS does not have party continuity. Everything has to balance at the end of the session. Purchases have to be lump sum and contained.

the rule would have to be complex by it's very nature and open more issues than it solves.

[Ragoz]

On top of what trollbill said I'll also say that I haven't mistaken the costs.

If a player was going to buy consumables before he would certainly buy them with a change that has only benefits compared to before. In both cases you will always buy the consumable it is now a sunk cost because you can't refund that purchase and you were always going to buy the item. The purchaser has no choice but to purchase it if they want the benefits of the item. He has no additional opportunity cost over what choice he had before meaning there is no opportunity cost in the argument's comparison.

In return for his expense he now gives the entire remainder of the party an opportunity to purchase items without considering their expenses until AFTER they have completed the adventure. This means that while the total WBL is the same any point (of course it is, nobody said otherwise) the expense of the item (the time when it impacts your WBL) is always delayed until you have a greater total sum of gold. Effectively you have more spending power at every point when it would come time to pay for the consumable.

[Azothath]

example 1-
Players at a Tier 1-2 table mid scenario. Everyone is down in HPs. Someone pulls out a scroll of cure light wounds and asks;

a) do you want a cure light wounds?
unsaid: yes, it will come out of my character's gold as I already paid for this scroll and we're lucky I did. Current rule.

b) are you going to pay me back for this?
unsaid: I may not cure you.
Some GMs may raise PFS values and atonements for good aligned characters. For 300gp some players might prefer the atonement or just remain quiet that they have any healing.
I think it's fair to ask under the current system in an RP environment. Everyone knows there won't be any money exchange. We want you to cooperate, not force it, but there still may be some comments or thank yous.

c) how are you going to pay for this?
I don't think we want to go here.

[trollbill]

Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

While most home games I see now hold true to that, I have seen home games that:

1) All the gold was split up evenly and people diced for pick of magic items. This caused some serious problems as the party Wizard might pick the +4 longsword simply because the money he could get by selling it was far better than any of the actual Wizard choices.

2) Due to the above problem, this evolved into: all treasure is totaled up, including magic items, at their sell value and gold value is divided evenly, then you diced for "purchasing" magic items from the pool at sell value. This at least had the advantage that if you were competing with someone for a +4 longsword, it was at least someone who could use it.

[Andrew Christian]

trollbill wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

While most home games I see now hold true to that, I have seen home games that:

1) All the gold was split up evenly and people diced for pick of magic items. This caused some serious problems as the party Wizard might pick the +4 longsword simply because the money he could get by selling it was far better than any of the actual Wizard choices.

2) Due to the above problem, this evolved into: all treasure is totaled up, including magic items, at their sell value and gold value is divided evenly, then you diced for "purchasing" magic items from the pool at sell value. This at least had the advantage that if you were competing with someone for a +4 longsword, it was at least someone who could use it.

We have been in a group that diced for things before. And yes, it devolved into people picking crap that their character couldn't really make use of just to sell it to get what they really wanted. But that lead to too many arguments, so we changed to just giving people who needed an item a chance to get that item if they wanted it.

[N N 959]

Ragoz wrote:

On top of what trollbill said I'll also say that I haven't mistaken the costs.

If a player was going to buy consumables before he would certainly buy them with a change that has only benefits compared to before. In both cases you will always buy the consumable it is now a sunk cost because you can't refund that purchase and you were always going to buy the item. The purchaser has no choice but to purchase it if they want the benefits of the item. He has no additional opportunity cost over what choice he had before meaning there is no opportunity cost in the argument's comparison.

The concept of "sunk cost" is only relevant when considering future investments. It isn't relevant to the discussion because we aren't trying to evaluate behavior after the purchase of the items.

What you're arguing is that behavior hasn't changed for some subset of players. Great, so that means the consumables that were available from that subset of players before the change are the same consumable that are available after the rule.

Quote:

In return for his expense he now gives the entire remainder of the party an opportunity to purchase items without considering their expenses until AFTER they have completed the adventure. This means that while the total WBL is the same any point (of course it is, nobody said otherwise) the expense of the item (the time when it impacts your WBL) is always delayed until you have a greater total sum of gold. Effectively you have more spending power at every point when it would come time to pay for the consumable.

That's incorrect.

1) The character doesn't have more spending power at every point. At the end of the scenario, the character that replaces the item is at exactly the same as if the character had purchased the consumable to begin with. So they have no greater spending power than they had before.

2) Since you've brought up the subset of characters whose behavior is not modified, it works both ways. Characters who didn't buy those consumable before, are still not buying them now. So once again, they don't experience any change in spending power. To the contrary, those that use the consumables, can now pay them back and will experience less spending power than they do under the current system.

So no, I don't agree with your presentation of the situation. Players aren't leveraging WBL. At the end of the scenario those that actually use the resources have far less if they replaced what they used than they would now. Their spending power is less, not more at the end of the scenario. What this rule does is allows a voluntary balancing of wealth. Now, those who consume more, pay more.

[Charon's Little Helper]

trollbill wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

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.

While most home games I see now hold true to that, I have seen home games that:

1) All the gold was split up evenly and people diced for pick of magic items. This caused some serious problems as the party Wizard might pick the +4 longsword simply because the money he could get by selling it was far better than any of the actual Wizard choices.

2) Due to the above problem, this evolved into: all treasure is totaled up, including magic items, at their sell value and gold value is divided evenly, then you diced for "purchasing" magic items from the pool at sell value. This at least had the advantage that if you were competing with someone for a +4 longsword, it was at least someone who could use it.

See - if the group wanted to be more specific about it (about 1/2 of the groups I've been in have been much looser about treasure splitting) we always used -

3) Have the items start at their selling price, and then the players can bid it up from their share of the $. So that +4 longsword will start at 8.15k, but if 2+ players want it, they may bid it up to 12k or so. Then that player gets what he wants and the others get more loot.

Really though, splitting solid treasure is pretty moot for PFS. For consumables in my home games everyone generally chips in. Now - I wouldn't want to do that in PFS, because frankly, some players have their characters do really stupid stuff, and I don't feel the need to subsidize that. But I'd definitely be willing to pay for it if someone used a consumable to bail me out after I do something stupid.

[Jessex]

After reading a good chunk of this I'm not even sure any more if what I've been doing is legal.

My -2 PC is a wizard who can cast stoneskin which has an expensive material component. I inform any martial character in my party that if they want it cast on them that they need to buy one or more doses of diamond dust. Is this the other player illegally reimbursing me for casting the spell?

[Ragoz]

That's ridiculous. If I don't have to pay the expense until after I receive my extra 24,129 gold upon completion of the scenario of course I have more spending power than if I had to pay that cost before I received the income.

This is why the credit system even exists as it is today. You are delaying the payment of the consumable's impact on your wealth in return for a gain in opportunity cost of having your cash still on hand now.

Quote:

Characters who didn't buy those consumable before, are still not buying them now. So once again, they don't experience any change in spending power.

These same characters are receiving the entire benefit as if they HAD made that purchase. They DIDN'T make the purchase, they WEREN'T prepared, and they reaped all the benefits of from it as if they had been and without the additional investment of consumables which haven't turned over yet.

Edit:

I'm just putting it out there that I love power gaming. If you give me a rule I will abuse it if it is legal. I'm letting everyone here know this is abusive before it gets added. You are adding a lot of spending power to many characters.

You bought a scroll I might need? Thanks. I'll take that extra persistent rod for now and if I need that scroll later I'll pay (or not because hey I didn't need it after all!)

[Ragoz]

Jessex wrote:

After reading a good chunk of this I'm not even sure any more if what I've been doing is legal.

My -2 PC is a wizard who can cast stoneskin which has an expensive material component. I inform any martial character in my party that if they want it cast on them that they need to buy one or more doses of diamond dust. Is this the other player illegally reimbursing me for casting the spell?

No they are not. They are purchasing diamond dust.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Jessex wrote:

After reading a good chunk of this I'm not even sure any more if what I've been doing is legal.

My -2 PC is a wizard who can cast stoneskin which has an expensive material component. I inform any martial character in my party that if they want it cast on them that they need to buy one or more doses of diamond dust. Is this the other player illegally reimbursing me for casting the spell?

Step it back another level.

Restoration takes 1000gp of diamond dust. Do people that keep that as an insurance policy in their bags violate the rules on a regular basis on the off-chance they have someone that can cast it?

[TriOmegaZero]

Jessex wrote:

Is this the other player illegally reimbursing me for casting the spell?

No moreso than the monk who asks the wizard to activate his wand of mage armor on him.

[BigNorseWolf]

Jessex wrote:

After reading a good chunk of this I'm not even sure any more if what I've been doing is legal.

My -2 PC is a wizard who can cast stoneskin which has an expensive material component. I inform any martial character in my party that if they want it cast on them that they need to buy one or more doses of diamond dust. Is this the other player illegally reimbursing me for casting the spell?

They cannot buy diamond dust from you, but if they happen to be carrying their excess wealth in the form of diamond dust (as every adventurer should be) they can hand it to you.

Functionally the same thing.

[Azothath]

example 2-
Players at a Tier 1-2 table mid scenario. PC A says I've shot all my 20 arrows. PCs B, C, D give A 5 cold iron arrows each. 'A' fires off 10. He has 5 left. At the end;

a) B, C, D mark off 5, 5, and 0 respectively, A has no arrows. Current rule.

b) B, C, D mark off 5, 5, 5, and A gets 5 arrows and pays each 4sp. Not a big deal but A got a partial lot and better arrows than he started out with and got to use cold iron arrows and didn't have to pay for it until the end. Really this is a trade as B C D got full price.

c) people forget and A walks off with 5 arrows, B, C, D all mark off 5. It happens. Current situation. While nobody is gonna sweat 1 gp, what if they were +1 arrows... what if A insists that he "spent" the arrows and that B, C, D are just paying him back? How does this work if A uses Abundant Ammunition and keeps the arrows that others think he fired?

d) B gives A another 15 arrows as he's changing the weapon out, A gives 5 to C & D and A exits with 10 arrows.

I'm just using arrows to show how it's gonna get messy with item lots.

[N N 959]

Ragoz wrote:

That's ridiculous. If I don't have to pay the expense until after I receive my extra 24,129 gold upon completion of the scenario of course I have more spending power than if I had to pay that cost before I received the income.

This is why the credit system even exists as it is today. You are delaying the payment of the consumable's impact on your wealth in return for a gain in opportunity cost of having your cash still on hand now.

We must be talking about different things. I enter a scenario not having bought a potion. Midway through, I get one. At the end of the scenario, the payment is deducted from my total scenario payout.

No change in spending power. The float time of the loan is inconsequential because 99% of the time I'm not going to buy anything between having benefited from the potion and when I can make meaningful purchases.

Quote:

These same characters are receiving the entire benefit as if they HAD made that purchase. They DIDN'T make the purchase, they WEREN'T prepared, and they reaped all the benefits of from it as if they had been and without the additional investment of consumables which haven't turned over yet.

Under the current system, these characters are getting the exact same benefit but aren't able to pay for it at the end of the scenario. So under the current system, those who consume more resources are leveraging and siphoning the WBL of others and they can't even undo the inequity. Remember, you claimed that those who are buying the consumables aren't changing their behavior.

[BigNorseWolf]

C) Like anything else, you can't sell something for more than you spent on it. The cost of an abudnantly ammunitioned ammo is 0, so you can't get more than zero back.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

I have a couple of issues/knee jerk reactions:

:
When is this even an option?
There is a pretty large gray area, when it comes to certain buffs, and how they can benefit other characters as well prayer. In this case it would be unclear, how much if anything could be reimbursed by the party. This is something the GM would have to deal with... not a fan on that front. If we do this, we need relatively firm rules when this can apply and when it can't. Situations like me using my scroll of restoration on the party bard to remove 4 negative levels, that's a pretty clear-cut example (and just happened to me). Other cases are a bit more complicated, I guess single target effects could be one way to limit it.

Does this need to have a threshold?
Should we only bother with spells/items that cost 300 GP or more, or do we really want to deal with the scroll of remove fear?

Will this affect preparation?
I am not certain, that with this rule players will have more consumables with them. Sometimes having only one scroll of restoration in the party (since the other players can just reimburse should they need it) can be really dangerous and lead to a TPK.

Will this create more resentment and expectations?
No idea really, in theory, this can already happen, when you play with a new group and you are expected to chip in for when players die (for added salt, die because of stupidity), in some cases this is a lose-lose situation, either you chip in and resent them or you don't and suddenly you are that guy.
It hasn't happened to me yet, I have played with characters that "didn't pull their weight" but it usually works out fine. Of course in some situations, first aid gloves are an option (and I personally really like using them, my -1 already had to buy her second set)^^

[Azothath]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

C) Like anything else, you can't sell something for more than you spent on it. The cost of an abudnantly ammunitioned ammo is 0, so you can't get more than zero back.

my point in example 2 c) is that others think he shot more than he did, Abundant Ammo uses 1 piece as the material component. Thus he can claim that the arrows are his (given to him for other arrows he shot).

It just gets messy.

you can up the stakes in the arrow game by using First Aid Gloves (10 gems on 2 gloves) or scrolls with multiple spells of the same type. It's the same pea and three walnut shell game...

[BigNorseWolf]

Stephen Ross wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

C) Like anything else, you can't sell something for more than you spent on it. The cost of an abudnantly ammunitioned ammo is 0, so you can't get more than zero back.

my point in example 2 c) is that others think he shot more than he did, Abundant Ammo uses 1 piece as the material component. Thus he can claim that the arrows are his (given to him for other arrows he shot).

It just gets messy.

Seriously? People finagling the system to transfer a copper piece, if that? THATS what people are worried about?

[Wei Ji the Learner]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Seriously? People finagling the system to transfer a copper piece, if that? THATS what people are worried about?

...because apparently one copper piece will turn into thousands of gold, at just a copper piece a day...

I think some of the discussion point of the original post was missed in all this back and forth about wealth noncreation and the fears of WBL manipulation.

Characters should be allowed to pay for services rendered on their behalf, whether they came in scroll, caster, or other form, IF they want to or IF they feel it is appropriate (keeping in mind the cautionary extreme tales of antisocial individuals expending costly items upon a given character for the sole sake of driving a character to debt, etc).

On the other side of the token, a generous character would realize that the Let's say...fighter is kind of broke because of his gear, and the fighter chipping in five hundred because that's all he can afford and maintain a small 'emergency fund' is just as legit as the wizard paying for a pair of gloves outright?

ie, cooperation doesn't have a price tag, but it's nice to be acknowledged (even on a 'loss leader') that things cost money?

[saltyone]

Let's see if I can explain WBL manipulation in a more understandable manner.

Player A has communal energy resist, oil of daylight, communal align weapon and blessing of the mole. (about 2K worth of consumables)

Player B C and D do not have any of these items

Scenario A passes and energy resist is the only consumable that is used/needed

Player B, C and D pay their share of the scroll (about 100g) and go happily on their way.

At the end of the day, they saved an opportunity cost of 2K by not having those consumables.

[Ragoz]

The people buying the consumables aren't changing their behavior that is correct. There are players who siphon WBL off others currently. Your solution is a non-mandatory opportunity for them to repay it? You should fix the problem at the source and change their behavior so that they do invest into their own resources rather than abusing the good nature of others. If they suddenly aren't given the opportunity to take advantage of this situation (the player with the item says "No") they might reconsider making this choice in the future. This is the difference between corrective and punitive systems. The current system can change unwanted behavior for the better. The new system encourages them to continue this behavior.

I'm no longer sure what you are talking about even with your example now. Here is mine in the hopes it is more clear:

Tom and Jerry are preparing for their next adventure, The Waking Rune, oh my! They know it is likely they will need 3000g in scrolls for their mission. Tom says to Jerry "Hey Jerry you can't reimburse me on these scrolls, how about we each buy 1,500g in scrolls?" They do so and each spend 1,500g of their 3,000 available. During the mission Jerry needs 1,500g in scrolls used. He has already paid the cost of the scrolls.

Tom and Jerry are preparing for their next adventure, The Waking Rune, oh my! They know it is likely they will need 3000g in scrolls for their mission. Tom says to Jerry "Hey Jerry you can reimburse me on these scrolls, how about I cover the cost for now and you can pay me back later if it is used?" They do so and Tom purchases the scrolls while Jerry buys a lesser piercing metamagic rod. They have each spent 3,000g.
During the mission Jerry needs 1,500g in scrolls used. He successfully completes the mission and pays the cost afterward.

In the first example Jerry wasn't able to take advantage of the opportunity Tom provided him in the second. He had to spend gold ahead of time for a necessary resource and couldn't spend more than his budget to get an additional item.

In the second example he used his 'credit' to effectively increase his spending power and purchase an item he could not obtain previously at that moment. Multiply the advantage Jerry received by the number of people at the table besides Tom and suddenly you have very large sums of extra effective wealth for the entire party because Tom can give them each the benefit of forgoing their payment until a later time.

This is my problem with the proposed rule.

If you don't think this is a problem that can be up for debate but I believe my example would fairly represent what would happen.

[N N 959]

saltyone wrote:

Let's see if I can explain WBL manipulation in a more understandable manner.

Player A has communal energy resist, oil of daylight, communal align weapon and blessing of the mole. (about 2K worth of consumables)

Player B C and D do not have any of these items

Scenario A passes and energy resist is the only consumable that is used/needed

Player B, C and D pay their share of the scroll (about 100g) and go happily on their way.

At the end of the day, they saved an opportunity cost of 2K by not having those consumables.

A couple of problems here:

1) Under the current system, you have the exact same situation except for the line where B, D, and D pay their share. Under the current system B, C, and D go on their merry way none the poorer and some feeling bad for not being able to compensate the buyer. So, imo, what we have now is worse, we have WBL siphoning and freeloader guilt.

2) There is no opportunity cost savings unless you can prove that B, C, and D, would have purchased all those same exact items under the current rules, but not under the proposed rules. If B, C, and D would not have purchased those items under the system we have now, then there is no opportunity cost avoided. Conversely, if B, C, and D, would still purchase those items under the proposed system, then we have no opportunity cost savings.

3) What is worse for PFS:

Players never having to or being allowed to replace/pay for the use of those items;

or

Players only having to replace/pay for those items if they use them, assuming someone has them to be used to begin with?

[Pink Dragon]

Whatever system is in place, someone will complain. In my view, keep it simple. Stay out of the reimbursement paradigm because that is, well, simpler, and more easily adjudicated.

[tlotig]

Lets limit this to fully used consumables:
-IF and ONLY IF the item was completely used (started as new became worth 0gp) in the course of the adventure
-The other players MAY elect to contribute to the purchase of a new item any amount they see fit, the item MUST be bought immediately (the player can not save the gold)

Notes:
Only works on items that are worthless when out of charges
Probably wont apply to wands
Owner must have access to purchase another (some chronicles have partially charged wands that are limit one, this will not work under this suggestion)

[BigNorseWolf]

Ragoz wrote:

The current system can change unwanted behavior for the better.

How?

If i burn a breath of life scroll on someone, they CANNOT pay me back for it. If they want to siphon off wealth, they have the ultimate excuse to do so, they literally CAN NOT pay me back for it.

I cannot track your thought process on what you're complaining about, at all. Jerry can do the exact same thing now, it will just might tom money. That will work only if the players know each other. If you have a con, it doesn't.

What the proposal does is make strangers play more like friends, which is a great thing in a society where a tenant is to cooperate.

[Blackjack X]

I would think a friend would be more like someone who would use the BoL without expecting payment in return.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Blackjack X wrote:

I would think a friend would be more like someone who would use the BoL without expecting payment in return.

But who would take whatever a friend could offer to pay them because that's what friends do.

At least, that's how it works with *my* friends?

"Wei, I'm a bit short this week, I'll cook but could you spot me some of the cash to get the stuff to cook with?"

"Sure thing, boss. Been looking forward to your chili."

[Ragoz]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Ragoz wrote:

The current system can change unwanted behavior for the better.

How?

If i burn a breath of life scroll on someone, they CANNOT pay me back for it. If they want to siphon off wealth, they have the ultimate excuse to do so, they literally CAN NOT pay me back for it.

I cannot track your thought process on what you're complaining about, at all. Jerry can do the exact same thing now, it will just might tom money. That will work only if the players know each other. If you have a con, it doesn't.

What the proposal does is make strangers play more like friends, which is a great thing in a society where a tenant is to cooperate.

If you don't burn the breath of life scroll on them because they weren't prepared they might learn from the experience and buy one in the future.

Even if you can't be convinced of this I refuse to believe you don't see the drawback economically of allowing players to do this which is the major point of my example. It is pretty clear this is a problem.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Ragoz wrote:

Even if you can't be convinced of this I refuse to believe you don't see the drawback economically of allowing players to do this which is the major point of my example. It is pretty clear this is a problem.

There are no problems. There are, however, opportunities.

[Ragoz]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

There are no problems. There are, however, opportunities.

Mmmm... fortune cookie.

[Hiruma Kai]

Ragoz wrote:

Tom and Jerry are preparing for their next adventure, The Waking Rune, oh my! They know it is likely they will need 3000g in scrolls for their mission. Tom says to Jerry "Hey Jerry you can't reimburse me on these scrolls, how about we each buy 1,500g in scrolls?" They do so and each spend 1,500g of their 3,000 available. During the mission Jerry needs 1,500g in scrolls used. He has already paid the cost of the scrolls.

Tom and Jerry are preparing for their next adventure, The Waking Rune, oh my! They know it is likely they will need 3000g in scrolls for their mission. Tom says to Jerry "Hey Jerry you can reimburse me on these scrolls, how about I cover the cost for now and you can pay me back later if it is used?" They do so and Tom purchases the scrolls while Jerry buys a lesser piercing metamagic rod. They have each spent 3,000g.
During the mission Jerry needs 1,500g in scrolls used. He successfully completes the mission and pays the cost afterward.

I hate to break it to you, but this is already possible in the current system when playing with friends. It just requires cooperation and trust.

I tend to play with my family, and we have sets of characters which only get played together. One group has two front line melee types (a Barbarian and a Bloodrager), while the 3rd which I play is a support Skald. Not needing to buy magic weapons on the Skald means I tend to buy and use the necessary party consumables. With some exceptions bought with PP by the other two. Heck, I've bought the Barbarian her current magic mithral breastplate armor and hand it to her at the beginning of each adventure. Some people might view that barbarian as over the WBL by 50% or so at 4th level after being handed the armor.

However, the total wealth all 3 characters bring to the table is still the equivalent of just 3 characters. It does lets you focus it more efficiently - optimize it if you will.

Sure, the Skald will fall behind in WBL due to consumable use, and currently is about 50% behind in WBL when on the field because of the armor, but it doesn't cause problems in play, and seems to improve performance of the entire party. That particular group of 3 characters is admittedly becoming notorious in our play group for combat effectiveness.

The thing I see as the problem with the economic argument is when you are playing with strangers, which I think is the main use case for this proposed rule change, how do you coordinate purchases ahead of time? With regular friends, with or without the rule change, you can already do this with cooperation.

[Ragoz]

So what you are really saying is it doesn't actually happen in play because your Skald fell 50% behind wbl where in my example that same person never loses gold. Ok then.

And yeah the problem does come up with strangers where currently you aren't likely to sacrifice 50% of your wealth making sure they have everything they need or want. If you add this option suddenly you get to do so because the actual gold lost never hits your character it hits theirs. So you added all that utility to your character for free while not actually spending anything our of pocket you spend it out of theirs.

[BigNorseWolf]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Do people that keep that as an insurance policy in their bags violate the rules on a regular basis on the off-chance they have someone that can cast it?

1,000 gp of weightless material that can be freely transfered back and forth between gems and coins? Yes. How else do you carry 1,000 gp?

[Hiruma Kai]

Ragoz wrote:

So what you are really saying is it doesn't actually happen in play because your Skald fell 50% behind wbl where in my example that same person never loses gold. Ok then.

And yeah the problem does come up with strangers where currently you aren't likely to sacrifice 50% of your wealth making sure they have everything they need or want. If you add this option suddenly you get to do so because the actual gold lost never hits your character it hits theirs. So you added all that utility to your character for free while not actually spending anything our of pocket you spend it out of theirs.

I think the two examples are actually pretty close. I'd like to compare my party under the current rules vs your example under the proposed reimbursement rules. Let us assume the players earn 3,000 gp for the adventure.

So, my group is about to play Waking rune, under the current rules.
The barbarian buys a 3,000 gp adamantine weapon, while I buy 3,000 gp in scrolls.

I use 1,500 gp in scrolls.

At the end, one player has a 3,000 gp item + 3,000 gp earned, for a total of 6,000 gp. The other player has 1,500 gp in scrolls + 3,000 gp earned, for 4,500 gp total.

We had a nice item through the adventure, and access to all the scrolls we needed.

In your example:

Ragoz wrote:

Tom and Jerry are preparing for their next adventure, The Waking Rune, oh my! They know it is likely they will need 3000g in scrolls for their mission. Tom says to Jerry "Hey Jerry you can reimburse me on these scrolls, how about I cover the cost for now and you can pay me back later if it is used?" They do so and Tom purchases the scrolls while Jerry buys a lesser piercing metamagic rod. They have each spent 3,000g.

During the mission Jerry needs 1,500g in scrolls used. He successfully completes the mission and pays the cost afterward.

At the end of your example, one player has 3,000 gp in equipment + 3,000 gp earned - 1,500 gp for reimbursement for a total of 4,500 gp wealth, and the other has 3,000 gp scrolls + 3,000 gp earned, for a total of 6,000 gp.

They had a nice item through the adventure, and access to all the scrolls they needed.

How is this different? Effectiveness is the same through the adventure, people have the same gold in the example at the beginning and end. Is it because the "unprepared" barbarian has more gold left over than the "unprepared" Jerry? Or is there some numerical difference I'm missing?

In both cases, someone has been able to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the other character. It is just swapping who is taking advantage as far as I can tell. The barbarian got the advantage of all the scroll flexibility at no cost. In your example, Tom got the advantage of all the scroll flexibility at no cost.

Also, how does the possibility of my Skald dying and being unable to afford a raise dead affect your assessment? In that case, I need to start playing a different character with those two. We would have two mid-level characters who have never spent for consumables, but got all the benefits.

[rknop]

N N 959 wrote:

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.

Here's the thing. We live with part of that culture, and part of it sucks. Look at all the "CLW Wand" threads. Not only is there very strong cultural pressure to buy a CLW Wand with your first two prestige, you can find people who will loudly proclaim that they will refuse to use any of their healing abilities on a wounded player who doesn't have their own wand. Of course, this is mostly the forums, and it's common to find dicks on web forums, but these kinds of things have in the past led me to think that PFS is just not a nice place to be.

If we open the can of worms of an expectation that any time anybody used something consumable on you that it would be replayed, I predict that cultural expectations would grow. First, if somebody used a consumable on you, the expectation would be to pay it back, and people would start to consider you a jerk if you didn't. Second, following on to that, people would start expecting spellcasters (particularly buffing types like Bards and Clerics) to have any manner of consumables on them at all times, because, after all, they know they'll get paid back, so why aren't they ready with <thing I need>? Finally, it just becomes all so self-focused and accounting-focused. I'd rather play in a campaign where people come together to face the scenario together. Yeah, there are always going to be some freeriders out there who don't bring their share of consumables, but I'd rather put up with a few of those than have the entire system turned into "every tub on its own bottom", which leads to a dog-eat-dog kind of world.

If I thought the option would come in without the expectation, then I'd be for it. But I guarantee you that if the option of repaying consumables would come in, the community expectation would come in as well, just as it has with having your own CLW Wand. And, then, we'd have really annoying people loudly proclaiming how anybody who didn't pay back every little thing used on them were jerks... just as we do with CLW wands.

Quote:

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.

Who's going to feel like a jerk for not going on with community expectation is only part of the problem. The other part is the community expectations in the first place.

Some people probably feel guilty right now for not having their own CLW wands. More people probably wish that they could have spent their first 2 PP on a Mage Armor wand, or that they didn't have to feel guilty spending 1PP on a Wayfinder after "The Confirmation" was the first scenaio for a character, or that there weren't so many insufferable people on the forums on a high horse about how people without CLW wands don't deserve any healing from other party members.

[GM Lamplighter]

Allowing a swap of a physical item you already have, for one that is used on you by a colleague to save your life, both allows you to reimburse your colleague, AND rewards individual preparedness. It still allows for someone to selflessly use their own items to save others without thought of repayment as well.

It also eliminates the idea of "quantum gold" being able to be any expendable you need it to be, after the fact. And it's the closest thing to what is being done now by prepared players: swapping items in advance or using each other's BoL in the first place instead of their own.

[Fromper]

It does seem like Ragoz and GM Lamplighter are arguing from a position of well coordinated players being able to game the system, and they're right. But how many tables are made of well coordinated players who know who they'll be playing with in advance?

The way I see it, if a small subset of PFS players are able to "game the system" a little by coordinating, and the result is that they're able to occasionally make big purchases one adventure earlier than they would otherwise, then that's a minor enough "problem" that I don't really care.

I agree with those who think the social expectation of being repayed will make it socially mandatory, even if it's not rules mandatory, is the bigger potential problem with this.

[BigNorseWolf]

Fromper wrote:

It does seem like Ragoz and GM Lamplighter are arguing from a position of well coordinated players being able to game the system, and they're right.

The problem is that they're complaining about well coordinated players being able to game the new system without realizing that they can still game the current system the exact same way so they're arguing against the wrong variable.

And that gaming the system amounts to, gasp, cooperating.

[Jayder22]

I like this idea, but I think it should be limited to only scrolls of Breath of Life. There is already an option to pool resources for raise dead, and BoL is an extension of that.

The social constraints/expectations problem would largely disappear, who wouldn't be glad to repay the cost of the scroll instead of a raise dead? There also wouldn't be a metaphorical "grab bag" of consumables you could expect someone to have.

While I think it would be better to allow the BoL repayment to not require you to have your own scroll, GM Lamplighter's version, applied only to scrolls of BoL would be a fine compromise too I think. (if you have your own BoL scroll and someone uses one on you, you may reimburse them by giving them your scroll, thus crossing off yours and they keep theirs at the end.)