Sharing consumables (PFS Rules Change?)


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So this has come up a few times before, most recently here.

Quote:

What about this? I have a scroll of breath of life. You die, I use my scroll on you. Are you allowed to replace my scroll at your cost?

I know the answer is no, but I also know that enough GMs allow it that the rule should either be revisited or reinforced. Imo, the rule should be, "if I use your consumable, I should be able to reimburse your consumable (not the cost, but the item).

We all know that this is technically against the current rules of PFS. You can't buy items for other PCs. So if someone gives you their consumable, and you use it, you can't buy them a replacement.

How would everyone feel about requesting a PFS rules change to make an exception to the "no buying items for other PCs" to allow for consumable replacement this way?

Grand Lodge 2/5

Like I said in the quote, it either needs to be revisited or reinforced.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Each PC buys an item, trades items at the start of the scenario. That way they use the other PCs item instead of their own. Much as you never use your own first aid kit on a fellow soldier, you use theirs.

Dark Archive

I think it is a tough line to draw. For example, should you get payment for every wand charge? What about 49 wand charges? What about when the scroll of remove disease doesn't actually remove the disease? What if a player lends me an item and I use it, but don't have the gold to pay them back? These are all questions to consider if there is going to be a rule change. Personally, I am against a player endebting themselves to another. I suspect it would lead to tense feelings.

Silver Crusade

This is why it's worth having the conversation. I'd lean towards requesting the rules change, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

But I'd definitely want specific conditions on it. The main one is that they'd only be allowed to replace the specific consumed item, not the cost of it, or any equivalent. So no worry about wand charges, because you can't replace part of a wand. We probably even want to narrow it to only being allowed for single-use consumables, such as potions and scrolls. Yes, that takes First Aid Gloves out of the conversation, but leaves scrolls of Breathe of Life.

The main reason I'd be in favor of this is that some players just don't bring well prepared PCs. Usually, it's newer players who just don't know about all the good "standard" consumables. This way, the better prepared players don't have to feel like they're carrying the new guys, because the PC who gets the benefit of the item can be the one who buys it in the end.

But yes, I could see there being arguments if a player expects to have their consumable replaced, but the beneficiary chooses not to. Some social standards would have to be talked about, as well.

Shadow Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Randy Saxon wrote:
I think it is a tough line to draw.

No one is arguing that restitution should be mandatory, but it should be an option for those who wish to repay their comrades' kindness.

Grand Lodge 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Randy Saxon wrote:
Personally, I am against a player endebting themselves to another. I suspect it would lead to tense feelings.

This is exactly what happens in my original quote. It's just the debtor is unable to provide compensation in this scenario.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The restitution isn't much of a contentious issue as far as I can tell. The trick is to allow for it, without creating the expectation of it, and without allowing for wealth transfer between PCs.

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? What if they needed to save me - and had nothing? Pathfinders should be prepared - that means having stuff on you in advance, and not just paying a medical bill after someone else who was prepared saves your butt.

Scarab Sages 5/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Thames Valley aka chris manning

one of the tenets of the society is 'co-operate'.

if a crucial member of your party goes down and you all die, if you lose the knowledge guy and get no PP, or if you fail to stabilise the rogue and later die in a death trap - was it worth hoarding that potion / scroll / item ?.

We all know 'that guy' who never buys a wand / potion and you always have to bail him out, but on the whole most players have no problem offering / using their items for the good of the party.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
why should I save a PC who isn't willing to be prepared in the first place?

Because not everyone is a perfect player like you are. Sometimes new players get swept up in all of the other 9001 things they need to know in order to play PFS, and forget to purchase things like anti-toxin, potions of fly, CLW wands, etc. Sometimes veteran players make mistakes and don't pick up scrolls of Breathe of Life or Break Enchantment or whatever other high level spell they need to "save" themselves.

Sometimes your allies are human.

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
why should I save a PC who isn't willing to be prepared in the first place?
Because not everyone is a perfect player like you are. Sometimes new players get swept up in all of the other 9001 things they need to know in order to play PFS, and forget to purchase things like anti-toxin, potions of fly, CLW wands, etc. Sometimes veteran players make mistakes and don't pick up scrolls of Breathe of Life or Break Enchantment or whatever other high level spell they need to "save" themselves.

It's not just new players. I've got 15 characters in various stages of being played/GM credit/etc. Many people have lots more. Some of them haven't been played in a long time or just need a lot of maintenance. And I GM a lot more than I play nowadays so I just don't have the time to keep on top of all my characters. Things that happened when I'm playing characters that fit the party's needs relatively recently:

-Me: "I'll pull out and throw an alchemist's fire..." <checks inventory sheet> "Nope, nevermind, that was the other 3rd level GM character I geared up last week. I delay."
-Me: "I really wish I had some first aid gloves to save you. I have the money."
Other player: "Well, why didn't you buy them?"
Me: "Because they didn't exist the last time I played this character."

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

When someone uses their personal resources to save me I view it as unexpected Grace.

I see the desire to reimburse someone for their expenditures but I am concerned that would become the expectation. Rather than people getting a good feeling for doing something altruistic, it could become "just another part of the game."

Right now if I use my diamond dust to cast restoration on the strength-drained fighter I get the happy feeling of helping out another player. If I'm expecting him to give me 100gp at the end of the scenario, it's just not as fulfilling.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

18 people marked this as a favorite.

*Is following along*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 100 GP needed to cast restoration is fairly small by the level that the spell can be cast but the cost of a scroll of restoration is a little more meaningful. Perhaps I shouldn't admit this but I don't feel any guilt over ignoring rules that interfere with good manners.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Willis wrote:
If I'm expecting him to give me 100gp at the end of the scenario, it's just not as fulfilling.

It also may not make sense depending on the character. Like, for example, my Paladin of Sarenrae wouldn't accept payment for his healing services, it's part of his religion, and only healing those who can pay would be 100% against his ethos.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:
Randy Saxon wrote:
I think it is a tough line to draw.
No one is arguing that restitution should be mandatory, but it should be an option for those who wish to repay their comrades' kindness.

The problem is who is making it mandatory. Certainly not the campaign leadership or whatever rule gets written, but what happens when it becomes table expectation of the players.

What is the advice nearly every new 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.

If we create an option in the rules for the receiver of a consumable to pay back the provider of a consumable, what is the table expectation going to become for the majority of players? Most likely, pay for your own expendables. It is literally the exact same argument.

So now you have another category of thing to provide friction at a table, except its at a period of time least when you want to be having the discussion, in the middle of combat or the adventure. "Hey, will you pay me back for this breath of life scroll I could use on you? It makes a difference on whether I use it or not..."

I feel the best way to deal with this for a great majority of adventures, is take the time at the very beginning to discuss consumable purchases amongst the party, and buy the stuff before taking off from the lodge. Then pass them between the appropriate characters. As far as I know, you can always buy stuff right before the adventure starts.

I like the fact that sharing of expendables is a generous act of altruism, a positive thing. I don't want to see it transformed into an expectation and a possibly resentful act of peer pressure restitution.

Just my 2 cents.

Grand Lodge 2/5

4 people 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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
GM Lamplighter wrote:
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? What if they needed to save me - and had nothing? Pathfinders should be prepared - that means having stuff on you in advance, and not just paying a medical bill after someone else who was prepared saves your butt.

I'm opposed to mandatory replacement. It opens a gigantic can of worms.

What happens when the key clue that allowed the party to bypass something potentially very dangerous and damaging comes from a "Comprehend Languages" scroll read by one of the characters? Should there be a replacement? (What if it was "Tongues", which is quite a bit more expensive?)

What happens when somebody has an alchemist's fire and that was the only reason they were able to kill the swarm? Who reimburses that character?

On these boards, healing always seems to occupy a special place in the "everybody must pay for themselves". Probably because there is an easy way to decide who the beneficiary of it is. But, really, if a party comes prepared and works together, everybody is contributing to the overall success of the mission and survival of the players. Singling out healing as something that must always be reimbursed will only make things nastier. ("Aren't you glad that I had that adamantine weapon? Without it we would have had a lot of hits from that robot that we didn't have to put up with. Good thing I saved us all that healing money! But too bad you guys don't have to help pay for my super expensive weapon.")

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hiruma Kai wrote:
what is the table expectation going to become for the majority of players? Most likely, pay for your own expendables. It is literally the exact same argument.

This is where your argument stops making sense to me. If (as you say) players are already expected to pay for their own consumables, then why is expecting players to pay for consumables used upon them suddenly beyond the pale? It's the exact same principle, but adds in the option to not penalize prepared players for helping their less prepared comrades.

Hiruma Kai wrote:
"Hey, will you pay me back for this breath of life scroll I could use on you? It makes a difference on whether I use it or not..."

And anyone who does this is pretty clearly violating the "Cooperate" part of the PFS code. Honestly, that kind of behavior is a problem with the player, not rule.

Ninja EDIT:
Also, just to expand on the listed example, lets look at the current system, where restitution is impossible. Has anyone ever seen the following situation play out?

"Hey, I'd love to use this Scroll of Breath of Life on you, unfortunately you can't pay me back, so I think I'll save it."

Liberty's Edge 5/5

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

Just pay it forward and hope it balances out in the end.

I had a character killed in the middle of a module. Even after selling all my stuff I didn't have enough money for a Raise Dead. The rest of the party chipped in. They got nothing back for that. I was very grateful. There was no way for me to pay it back.

So, now, I "owe" the PFS player base some assistance in raising their characters if they die. I've done some of it, but have yet to give as much as I got.

Yeah, an individual accounting to make sure that everybody gets exactly the right gp value individually might seem more fair. But if we leave it as it is, and if players in general are willing to help each other out, it should balance things out.

If you've benefitted from somebody else's consumables, have some ready yourself to help somebody else out. It may not be exactly the same person, but it'll help keep PFS a nicer place.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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

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

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

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

Liberty's Edge 5/5

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

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.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a firm believer that this should be possible but NOT mandatory.

The problem with it being mandatory is that the player may NOT want it done to the character if he has to pay. Eg, a character is unconscious and another player uses a scroll of restoration. But the character was willing to live with the damage for the scenario and get cheaper spell casting later.

Unlikely but possible. And some players just HATE to be told what they MUST do.

I imagine in almost all cases there are no differences between "mandatory" and "permissible" so lets just avoid any potential issue and make it optional.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:
Hiruma Kai wrote:
"Hey, will you pay me back for this breath of life scroll I could use on you? It makes a difference on whether I use it or not..."
And anyone who does this is pretty clearly violating the "Cooperate" part of the PFS code. Honestly, that kind of behavior is a problem with the player, not rule.

Which player? The one being conditional about using their consumables, or the one expecting the other to use it?

Sovereign Court 4/5

Absolutely not. In no uncertain terms should we allow 'pay-backsies' of consumables.

It punishes those who are prepared and favours those who are not, or choose not to be prepared. I hear it all the time, I can't afford a scroll of BOL because I'm saving for X. They expect you to spend you money on such consumables and if you ever actually need to use it, then they'll fork it over, maybe.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:

Has anyone ever seen the following situation play out?

"Hey, I'd love to use this Scroll of Breath of Life on you, unfortunately you can't pay me back, so I think I'll save it."

I've seen situations where I VERY strongly suspect a character had a scroll to remove a condition but they chose not to volunteer that information.

Players AND characters have different levels of altruism and some can be quite choosy who they share with.

I know that I'm MUCH happier giving things to newer players or lower tier characters or generous players than I am to stingy experienced players.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/55/55/5 Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's a great idea to allow players to reimburse other players for consumables used on them. Why? It makes it more likely that people will buy first aid gloves, anti plague and anti toxin. With money being limited, a lot of people don't want to spend resources that they see as being more likely to go to someone less prepared.

I don't expect others to reimburse me when I have a consumable they use, but I'd like to have the capability to repay someone who thinks of something essential that I either forgot or simply did not think of.

I've tried to go through those lists of items that every Pathfinder needs, but it's easy to forget something. Being able to reimburse other people's consumables would lead to even more team feeling than we have now.

Don't make it mandatory. Just possible.
Hmm

Shadow Lodge

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Which player? The one being conditional about using their consumables, or the one expecting the other to use it?

The former. They're allowing another PC to die, (and thereby potentially jeopardizing the mission) even though they have the ability to prevent it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm of the opinion that those that don't plan for imminent death contingency accept the cost of that decision.

It's not my expectation that a fellow player should feel obligated to use their consumables on me.

I've also used far more BoL scrolls for other people than for myself.

I don't expect those people to reimburse me for my troubles.

I suspect altering the rules would both encourage those that don't already plan for these types of expenses to continue not to do so as well as create an expectation of reimbursement where none should exist.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:
The former. They're allowing another PC to die, (and thereby potentially jeopardizing the mission) even though they have the ability to prevent it.

I was going to say both. Expecting your party to cover your expenses isn't cooperating either.

The Exchange 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I can see both sides of this.

(The following is the pessimist in me coming out - seeing the potential bad parts of such a change).

I also realize that there are people in this game who feel that everything players can do in game should be splint into "Prohibited" & "Required" categories. "If it's not Required, then we need to Prohibit it." Sometimes I call them Type 1 gamers.

I often run alchemists who hand out LOTS of consumables. It's kind of a trademark of mine. I've even printed up cards (business card size) of several different types to hand out to other players. For example, my current "Crawl Pack" has a vial of Anti-Toxin, Anti-Plague, Sooth Syrup, Stillgut, as well as a pot of Alchemical Grease and a dose of Vermin Repellent. Each item has a couple lines discribing it's effects and a check box. After the game, I collect back the cards and mark off anything used... The total pack would cost 185gp, but as I'm an alchemist able to craft all that (DC25 for the hardest), I craft the entire pack at one third cost.

Players that game with me have started calling them "party favors". Players give me the cards back at games end and that way I have a list of what got used. (I've even encountered other players doing the same thing! Talk about a complement!)

Just before starting a "crawl", I'll often (in Character) instruct everyone to pull the "crawl pack" (not the grenade pack, the other card) and "drink the first three, and smear the last two over your body, put the 4th in a spring wrist sheath." This leads to the expected comments about "lube" and "oiling up" etc. Sometimes, when fighting a monster my Alchemist (who just made a Knowledge check) will yell something like "The Blue Bottle from the Grenade Pack! Hit it with the Blue Bottle T.S.!"

Every now and again, it means I get to point out "hay T.S., did you count the +5 alchemical bonus on that save?"... Sometimes it saves lives, or keeps someone in the fight...

(And I get to call everyone by the same first name..."T.S., for Test Subject") -

This is a fun thing that I like to do for my party - and it allows me to "Buff" in a unique way...
But I can see a New Rule that would REQUIRE the other players to re-pay me for my items - at the full cost to them. Even if it isn't written in the rules, I can see some judges requiring it (after all, what isn't prohibited is compulsory). Yeah, that's going to be fun....(sorry about the sarcasm)

Should we be allowed to replace something someone used for us? Yeah, that would be nice. I just fear it becoming REQUIRED (even if it's just required by "social pressure" from the group).

Dark Archive 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Outside of the usual "Hey, who can use this wand I have?", I never sit at a table expecting someone else whose character has the capability and the action economy to heal me to do so, much less by using their own resources (well, ok, maybe my husband). However, if they do choose to do so, I'm always appreciative, and thus would be more than willing to replace the big ticket items like a breath of life scroll or cure serious wounds potion. I *try* to remember to always get those or first aid gloves on every character as soon as possible, but sometimes I forget to get/replace them. When I do have them, I'm happy to use them on others as needed, without expecting them to be replaced by anyone but me. I agree that first aid gloves (and most items in general) seem a little much to replace for others, but I would be fine with a ruling that says that scrolls and potions can be replaced (but not reimbursed) if all parties involved are agreeable. I also agree that this shouldn't become an expected outcome, but only done freely and willingly.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
saltyone wrote:
I suspect altering the rules would both encourage those that don't already plan for these types of expenses to continue not to do so as well as create an expectation of reimbursement where none should exist.

But if we maintain the status quo those that don't prepare will continue to not prepare, while people such as yourself will continue to eat the cost to save them. Restitution allows you to potentially recoup the monetary loss.

Sovereign Court 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:

...stuff...

Ninja EDIT:
Also, just to expand on the listed example, lets look at the current system, where restitution is impossible. Has anyone ever seen the following situation play out?

"Hey, I'd love to use this Scroll of Breath of Life on you, unfortunately you can't pay me back, so I think I'll save it."

Yeah... More than once in fact.

Once it was "I didn't get a scroll from you, and I don't feel comfortable using one from the PCs that did give me one...."

Shadow Lodge

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I was going to say both. Expecting your party to cover your expenses isn't cooperating either.

Pooling resources to increase everyone's chances of survival and mission success isn't cooperation? Is letting another player die to save yourself 1000-ish gold really the kind of behavior that PFS wants to encourage?

If I die while holding a Scroll of BoL, it doesn't help me; I can't cast it on myself, so I'm at the mercy of my comrades. Under the current rules, I can't even hand over my scroll to pay back the person who saved me. Under the current rules if player A and player B both have BoL scrolls, the only way to prevent someone from losing gold by healing the other, is to have players A and B swap scrolls prior to the start of the mission. That's completely insane.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:
Pooling resources to increase everyone's chances of survival and mission success isn't cooperation?

You paying for all my expenses is not 'pooling resources'.


Disk Elemental wrote:
Hiruma Kai wrote:
what is the table expectation going to become for the majority of players? Most likely, pay for your own expendables. It is literally the exact same argument.

This is where your argument stops making sense to me. If (as you say) players are already expected to pay for their own consumables, then why is expecting players to pay for consumables used upon them suddenly beyond the pale? It's the exact same principle, but adds in the option to not penalize prepared players for helping their less prepared comrades.

Given there is a distinction between making reimbursement optional or mandatory in this thread, I am making the point that making it "optional" by the rules is going to make it "mandatory" in the eyes of many players, and the only way it will not be mandatory is with arguing or bad feelings.

In summary, if you make it optional by the rules, it is effectively going to be an unwritten rule that you must, because of players.

If we all agree its bad to make it mandatory, we need to examine making it optional in a similar light.

Disk Elemental wrote:


Ninja EDIT:
Also, just to expand on the listed example, lets look at the current system, where restitution is impossible. Has anyone ever seen the following situation play out?

"Hey, I'd love to use this Scroll of Breath of Life on you, unfortunately you can't pay me back, so I think I'll save it."

I merely direct your attention to comments in this very thread which state some people are much less likely to buy consumables if they can't be paid back. Right now, as the rules are, they know they can't. But what happens when the fact they will or will not be paid back shifts to a decision in the middle of combat? I merely prefer that decisions and discussion like that be made before or after the adventure, rather than with questions to your fellow players during the game, or worse having an expectation and finding out afterwards your expectation was wrong.

I personally would love to be able to pay prepared characters back for consumables they hand to me. I just feel that at some tables, there will be arguments over whether someone should pay back or not when it is made optional. And some of those arguments will happen at poorly chosen times.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
You paying for all my expenses is not 'pooling resources'.

Who said I was paying "all your expenses"; can you please show me where I used that phrase? You're creating a strawman, rather than dealing with the actual point. Please stop.

4/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me there are a few too many of these must have items. Potion of fly, scroll of lesser restoration, scroll of restoration, oil of daylight, some way to breath water, scroll of breath of life, oil of magic weapon, align weapon, or other such spell, the various weapon blanches, etc. I'm sure there are other items -- some of which I likely don't even know about.

I'm still trying to figure out this balancing act.

As alluded to above, there is also the problem of making sure that you've stocked them on that particular character.

I think the important thing here is what makes the game fun. As a player, it isn't spending time going through inventories of characters and 'grocery shopping' for stuff I might need. As a GM, I get no joy from 'catching' an ill-prepared character who failed to bring some item that they may not have even been aware of.

I would love an easier way of handling this. I would be in favor of allowing the recompense, but it needs to be made clear that doing so is voluntary and no one can do the conditional "Must pay me back".

Dark Archive

Disk Elemental wrote:
But if we maintain the status quo those that don't prepare will continue to not prepare, while people such as yourself will continue to eat the cost to save them. Restitution allows you to potentially recoup the monetary loss.

I'm very sympathetic towards this view. However the way I see it, it simply enables the practice of buying that really expensive flashy magic item as early as possible at the expense of consumables.

By having such a reimbursal system in place, it allows one to reserve a certain amount of gold for that nice expendable so long as 1 person in a party has it. It allows one to hedge their bets on not needing cure blindness/deafness, for example, over a more common consumable, or perhaps no consumable whatsoever.

Whether that is a good or bad way to play, I think altering the current system encourages one style in particular which I'm not entirely comfortable with.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Recently, I ended up paying 5k for a raise dead for a pc, because he died, had a habit of dying and had no wealth (short of selling his gear) and no pp to bring himself back.
So being the person I am, and playing my paladin, I coughed up the cash so this dude wouldn't lose his character or his gear.
I expected nothing in return, but the dude bought me a soda and a cookie. All was well with the world.
Play the game for the game, cooperate, explore, report. Don't kill someone's fun, or great full attitude by billing them later.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it would encourage buying more breath of life scrolls if people could chip in for them

The Exchange 5/5

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

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

How the heck do we figure this?

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
You paying for all my expenses is not 'pooling resources'.
Who said I was paying "all your expenses";

I asked which player you were referring to. I mentioned said instance. Please read all of what I am saying.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:

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

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

How the heck do we figure this?

Pretty much the same way we do Jo's ressurection?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
saltyone wrote:
However the way I see it, it simply enables the practice of buying that really expensive flashy magic item as early as possible at the expense of consumables.

But this system doesn't change that... I think you're massively overestimating the impact of the rule.

I find it highly unlikely people who normally buy consumables aren't going to magically stop because they can pay someone back for using theirs (especially given that anyone who thinks about it for more than 10 seconds is gonna realize that if everyone else does the same it's going to result in huge problems.). The people who want their "flashy magic item" already forsake survivability consumables to purchase it, I don't think there's any change there/

The Exchange 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:

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

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

How the heck do we figure this?

Pretty much the same way we do Jo's ressurection?

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

The Exchange 5/5

Disk Elemental wrote:
saltyone wrote:
However the way I see it, it simply enables the practice of buying that really expensive flashy magic item as early as possible at the expense of consumables.

But this system doesn't change that... I think you're massively overestimating the impact of the rule.

I find it highly unlikely people who normally buy consumables aren't going to magically stop because they can pay someone back for using theirs (especially given that anyone who thinks about it for more than 10 seconds is gonna realize that if everyone else does the same it's going to result in huge problems.). The people who want their "flashy magic item" already forsake survivability consumables to purchase it, I don't think there's any change there/

It's a really big gaming community, filled with people who often do things that are (to me) both strange and uncomprehendable. I'm sure that there are people who would under the current system, buy consumables, but under the proposed system would not (expecting someone else to have it, and they can pay them back for whatever they needed).

I could even see it becoming sort of a "standard" - "have you set aside 10% of your wealth in a 're-payment fund' for items your party might use on you?"

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I must say I have a small problem with "chipping in" to save a party member. Me putting in gold will slow down my character's development. But I do it because a) it is expected, and b) is is the "good" thing to do.

How about this, what if the two parties agree before the consumable is used that the character getting the benefit will be reimbursed or otherwise do what ElyasRavenwood does. There should be a limit (the upper cost being the price for a scroll of breath of life?) on how much can be reimbursed. This agree should be done BEFORE the adventure that way it is something that is understood from the beginning.

If a player does not agree, a person can still use the consumable but has not expectation of reimbursement.

It should not be mandatory in any way.

My idea is rough but maybe it is something that can work..

1 to 50 of 437 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Sharing consumables (PFS Rules Change?) All Messageboards