Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Retrieving a stored item is, normally, a move action. An item that is stored in a spring-loaded wrist sheath may be retrieved as a swift action.
Can a scroll be placed in a spring-loaded wrist-sheath? As long as it is a "...forearm-length item", then yes. And the list provided includes items that are longer than scrolls (arrows, for example.)
Reading a scroll requires a standard action.
So, either it will take a move and standard, or a swift and standard (if the scroll is placed in the spring-loaded wrist sheath.) I can't for the life of me comprehend where someone comes up with the idea, from either specific, literal text in the rules or even inference, that it requires a THIRD action - one to retrieve it, one to unfurl it, and one to read it.
Now, can we please get back to the actual topic of this thread?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ha!
I've actually been in a game where someone not only offered the Cleric a scroll of BoL, but had a spring-loaded wrist sheath for it. The judge then asked to see the CLERICS copy of Adventurers Armory - and as she did not have one, ruled that the cleric could not use it. The guy offering the scroll had his copy of the AA, but the judge felt this was not good enough ("Rules say you have to have the source before you can use something, not that someone else at the table has to have it...")... It was pretty clear that the judge really didn't like the SLWS, and was presenting barriers to it's use.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ha!
I've actually been in a game where someone not only offered the Cleric a scroll of BoL, but had a spring-loaded wrist sheath for it. The judge then asked to see the CLERICS copy of Adventurers Armory - and as she did not have one, ruled that the cleric could not use it. The guy offering the scroll had his copy of the AA, but the judge felt this was not good enough ("Rules say you have to have the source before you can use something, not that someone else at the table has to have it...")... It was pretty clear that the judge really didn't like the SLWS, and was presenting barriers to it's use.
Oh, that's all we need.
Wizard: I cast Infernal Healing on the downed Fighter.
GM: Do you have the Inner Sea World Guide with you?
Wizard: Yes.
GM: Then you can cast the spell.
GM: Fighter, do you have the Inner Sea World Guide with you?
Fighter: No.
GM: Then the Wizard casts the spell but it doesn't work on you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Pass me a penny
"Why?
"passes over the book.
we actually suggested that, and the judge just pointed out that the guy with the scroll would then have no source to buy SLWR in the first place, so he couldn't have it to hand to the Cleric... Catch 22. We needed two copies at the table.
Next time we played we had more than one copy - that's when we learned that the guide says you have to have a copy of the current Additional Resources document (and at the time he required it to be a hardcopy) to use anything. I.E. you have to have a copy of the Source AND a copy of the A.R. document....
We've just started avoiding that judge now (or not bothering with the wrist sheaths when we are at his table).
|
|
ha!
I've actually been in a game where someone not only offered the Cleric a scroll of BoL, but had a spring-loaded wrist sheath for it. The judge then asked to see the CLERICS copy of Adventurers Armory - and as she did not have one, ruled that the cleric could not use it. The guy offering the scroll had his copy of the AA, but the judge felt this was not good enough ("Rules say you have to have the source before you can use something, not that someone else at the table has to have it...")... It was pretty clear that the judge really didn't like the SLWS, and was presenting barriers to it's use.Oh, that's all we need.
Wizard: I cast Infernal Healing on the downed Fighter.
GM: Do you have the Inner Sea World Guide with you?
Wizard: Yes.
GM: Then you can cast the spell.
GM: Fighter, do you have the Inner Sea World Guide with you?
Fighter: No.
GM: Then the Wizard casts the spell but it doesn't work on you.
Hay! this might work! gotta try that next time the judge springs something I've never heard of on me.
Judge: Make a Will save...
Me: sure! ah, Nat "1" again. So what happens?
Judge: (Obscure spell).
Me: wow, never heard of that... what books it from?
Judge: Mimes of the Inner Sea.
Me: nope, don't own that book. Must not effect me then...
LOL! yeah, that's gonna work out great!
|
|
A hard copy of the additional resources? Thats a level of arborproctology that makes the paladin/hellknight wince...
A current hard copy. We had one that was out of date (by a month I think...)
But (meh), we just avoided the problem. The cleric carried the scroll in hand for most of the combats, and we ended up not needing it anyway.
|
|
The guide does not say you need a physical copy of the additional resources. I do think there is disconnect between what is required in the guide and what happens in play though.
Sorry, I mis-spoke.
I should have said, "...we learned that the Additional Resources write-up says..."
In order to utilize content from an Additional Resource, a player must have a physical copy of the Additional Resource in question, a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of it, or a printout of the relevant pages from it, as well as a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As interesting as this diversion is, could we get back to the topic of the thread? More specifically, there's a number of people who prefer to be generous with their consumables, without having any assumption of other players paying them back. Are these people opposed to the proposed rule on any grounds other than their personal preference for play style?
Feel free to disagree with me, but saying "I prefer to be generous and not have the expectation of players to pay me back, therefore this rule shouldn't be introduced" is basically the same as saying "I prefer to play in purely martial parties, therefore all casters should be banned".
I have no problem if you prefer to be generous, but if people are allowed to pay you back you are still capable of declining their generous offer with a friendly "The offer is appreciated, but there is no need to repay me, your thanks and your continued survival is all the payment I need". As it currently stands there is no option for those who prefer a different play style.
Take for example, the loner Half-Elf Ertha. As a young proto-adventurer she was tricked into indentured servitude by accepting the generosity of one who would take advantage of her, and since then is resolved to never be in anyone's debt. As part of an adventure that didn't go as planned, Ertha intercepted a wizard's fireball that would have wiped out half the party, causing it to explode prematurely (no jokes please). This turned the tide of the fight but unfortunately left the poor half-elf little more than a charred husk. Ertha does not have enough money to fund her own Raising, even if she sold all of her equipment. The Bard, whom Ertha adventures with frequently, would be happy to help out with the costs, with Ertha able to pay him back when she had the funds, no strings attached. Ertha trusts the Bard enough that she reluctantly agrees, but is informed that this is not allowed - any donation made towards the cost of returning her to life must be one way, and may not be repaid. The party Cleric then pulls out a scroll of Breath of Life, and points out that Ertha has been dead for less than a turn. The cost of the scroll is well within what Ertha could afford, but is once again informed by the GM that she may not pay the Cleric back for the scroll - the only time players can give money to another player is when they are covering the costs of a Raise Dead. Without any way of not incurring a debt that she cannot pay back, Ertha is left with no acceptable options for returning to life, and so feels herself forced to remain dead. The player goes home and vows never to create a character with interesting backstory again, lest that too force the character to accept a death that, but for arbitrary society restrictions, could have been easily avoided.
Generosity is all well and good, but do we want to enforce/require generosity as the only option, because we banned co-operation and teamwork?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lirain, the issues here are far more complicated than that. We have 9 pages of post so I will not reiterate all the details.
The short answer is simply this. There are several possible benefits to this change. There are several possible detriments to this change. The possible benefits probably outweigh the possible deficits. But by how much? The kicker here is that the current system of generosity has been working for PFS FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS! So something needs to be more than a probable hard to quantify benefit to change it. As the old adage goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Now I know some of you think the current system is broke, but what is broke about it now that wasn't broke 8 years ago?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trollbill, (though I actually agree with you - IIAB,DFI) some people would point out that often "repayment in kind" is actually occurring. At some tables. With some judges turning a blind eye (or even rendering guidance and assistance). Used a CLW wand to heal someone? Clearly it was their wand you used. Used a scroll of BoL? which one of the 4 the cleric is carrying ACTUALLY got used? Heck, I've even seen "recovered potions" being used to replace Potions or wand charges used - "We would have used the loot recovered first..." even if we didn't find it until after the post-combat healing had taken place.
Perhaps they just want to amend the rules to allow what they are already doing (or what they would like to be doing...).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As interesting as this diversion is, could we get back to the topic of the thread? More specifically, there's a number of people who prefer to be generous with their consumables, without having any assumption of other players paying them back. Are these people opposed to the proposed rule on any grounds other than their personal preference for play style?
Feel free to disagree with me, but saying "I prefer to be generous and not have the expectation of players to pay me back, therefore this rule shouldn't be introduced" is basically the same as saying "I prefer to play in purely martial parties, therefore all casters should be banned".
I have no problem if you prefer to be generous, but if people are allowed to pay you back you are still capable of declining their generous offer with a friendly "The offer is appreciated, but there is no need to repay me, your thanks and your continued survival is all the payment I need". As it currently stands there is no option for those who prefer a different play style.
...
actually, under the current system, several times before going into a 'crawl, when I hand out several alchemical buffers (like Anti-toxin) and tell PCs to use them, some players will say "I'll go ahead and use mine if you think we need to. That way it's not costing you ..." to which I reply - "I make mine, so they cost 1/3 what yours cost. Lets go ahead and you save yours for when I'm not around and use my cheaper one now."
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the rules allow for pay back it will become a community forced, mandatory, compulsory rule.
As a mandatory rule, it is a regressive tax.
I really don't think this will become mandatory. Not to the extent that CLW wands has become.
The alternative to buying a CLW wand is to rely on the goodwill of your party members. If you continue to rely on your party, it is easy to be seen as selfish, or a resource drain (whether or not this is actually the case).
The alternative to pay-it-back is to adopt a pay-it-forward attitude. If you consistently pay-it-forward, you will be seen as just as much a team player as a pay-it-back player. It's only those that profess to pay-it-forward, but do not follow through that would be considered selfish by the group.
Trust can be difficult to extend. I would rather have a situation where we are not forced to trust strangers, but may chose to extend or accept their trust. I think that would make pay-it-forward much more meaningful, and those players respected in their communities.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally vote for changing the rules to allow a player to payback another. In fact, I think it's sorely missing from the game and it allows common courtesy between players, especially players that may never or rarely play at the same table again.
The current rule(s) around this seem artificial in the sense they enforce an unreal set of expectations for a set of party members that adventure together simply because it's "Society".
Perhaps there should be a minimum limit set (like 150 or 250 or whatever) so that simply casting an Endure Elements scroll for someone at the table isn't necessarily part of this mix.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lirain, the issues here are far more complicated than that. We have 9 pages of post so I will not reiterate all the details.
I am well aware of the details of the last 9 pages. I have read them. Have you?
If you had you might have realised that I am not in fact jumping in on the tail of this discussion - I think my first post here was on about page 3 or 4?
The short answer is simply this. There are several possible benefits to this change. There are several possible detriments to this change. The possible benefits probably outweigh the possible deficits. But by how much? The kicker here is that the current system of generosity has been working for PFS FOR THE LAST 8 YEARS! So something needs to be more than a probable hard to quantify benefit to change it. As the old adage goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Now I know some of you think the current system is broke, but what is broke about it now that wasn't broke 8 years ago?
"If it ain't broke don't fix it" is a terrible philosophy to live by. Sure it has uses, but it denies the opportunity for improvement out of fear of consequences, resulting in stagnation. If humanity as a whole lived by that rule we'd still be living in caves. Regardless, I do not consider it a valid counterargument to the proposed rule (or any other proposal, for that matter).
Furthermore, I was not even asking for a summary of the thread so far, I was actually asking a rather specific question. You have not only failed to address this anywhere in your reply, but seem to have completely missed the fact that I was asking a question at all. I was addressing one specific aspect of the possible deficits - that of personal preference of playstyle. Do you actually have anything to say on this topic?
|
|
More specifically, there's a number of people who prefer to be generous with their consumables, without having any assumption of other players paying them back. Are these people opposed to the proposed rule on any grounds other than their personal preference for play style?
I think I have made a fairly decent argument why this change shouldn't happen which isn't based on player preference or style.
At least in my opinion we would be going from if it ain't broke don't fix it to actually breaking it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More specifically, there's a number of people who prefer to be generous with their consumables, without having any assumption of other players paying them back. Are these people opposed to the proposed rule on any grounds other than their personal preference for play style?I think I have made a fairly decent argument why this change shouldn't happen which isn't based on player preference or style.
At least in my opinion we would be going from if it ain't broke don't fix it to actually breaking it.
You have put together a fair point. Whether that gain in efficiency is a bug or a feature depends on your perspective. I think the entirety of my disagreement with you comes from my thinking it's a feature and your thinking it's a bug.
|
The alternative to pay-it-back is to adopt a pay-it-forward attitude. If you consistently pay-it-forward, you will be seen as just as much a team player as a pay-it-back player. It's only those that profess to pay-it-forward, but do not follow through that would be considered selfish by the group.
...which is all well and good if you play with the same people most of the time.
If you're at a table of people you haven't played with before, things are different. Suppose you've adopted "pay it forward" and indeed have spent a lot on consumables yourself without accepting repayment. Then, somebody uses a BoL on you, and you say you won't repay it... and they start to get all over you because you're being a jerk. Indeed, everybody at the table may think the same way.
It opens a can of worms. You assert that it won't become mandatory the way CLW wands have become; I assert that I am very sure that it will. Neither of us can prove the other is wrong without actually implementing the policy and seeing what's up with it.
I'd rather leave things they way they are, with things working, then open up another possibility for people at the table to lay peer pressure on others to behave in a certain way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
