|
Since the discussion thread about this is well over 240 posts, I thought I'd start a separate thread with a poll. If you have anything to add to the debate, go back to that other thread. Only post your final opinions in this thread.
To summarize the matter we're debating, the question is whether to make a rules change in PFS to allow PC's to "pay back" those who use consumable items on them.
For example, player A and player B go on an adventure. Player A brings a scroll of Breathe of Life, and player B doesn't. Player B dies. The party cleric uses player A's scroll to bring back player B. Under the current rules, player A just lost money, because he no longer has his scroll, and player B can't pay him back. Under the proposed rules change, player B would be able to buy a replacement scroll to give player A.
In all of these proposals, it's assumed that we're replacing the expended item only, NOT paying money for it. So no money will ever directly change hands between PC's.
For each of the following possible ways of making this rules change, tell us if you'd be strongly in favor of the change, somewhat in favor, neutral, somewhat opposed, or strongly opposed.
1. Make the change for scrolls of Breathe of Life only. Only the person who benefited from the scroll can replace that scroll for the person who provided it.
2. Make the change for scrolls of Breathe of Life only. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
3. Make the change only for condition removal items (including death, so BOL still counts). Only the person who benefited can replace that item for the person who provided it.
4. Make the change only for condition removal items (including death, so BOL still counts). The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
5. Make the change for any single use, single target consumable item. Only the target of the consumable item can replace that item for the person who provided it.
6. Make the change for any single use, single target consumable item. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
7. Make the change for any single use item, regardless of targets. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
8. Make the change for any consumable item that goes from new to full expended during the adventure. This would have to be regardless of targets, since it could be used on more than one target, even if it's only one at a time. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
9. Make the change for ANY consumable item, including those with multiple uses that aren't fully expended. I have no idea how this would work in practice without coins changing hands instead of just items, so this seems like the least realistic possibility.
|
|
And now my own opinions:
1. Make the change for scrolls of Breathe of Life only. Only the person who benefited from the scroll can replace that scroll for the person who provided it.
Strongly in favor
2. Make the change for scrolls of Breathe of Life only. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
Strongly in favor
3. Make the change only for condition removal items (including death, so BOL still counts). Only the person who benefited can replace that item for the person who provided it.
Somewhat in favor
4. Make the change only for condition removal items (including death, so BOL still counts). The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
Somewhat in favor
5. Make the change for any single use, single target consumable item. Only the target of the consumable item can replace that item for the person who provided it.
Neutral (prefer to wait to see how this goes with more limited choices, above, before making such a large change)
6. Make the change for any single use, single target consumable item. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
Neutral (prefer to wait to see how this goes with more limited choices, above, before making such a large change)
7. Make the change for any single use item, regardless of targets. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
Neutral (prefer to wait to see how this goes with more limited choices, above, before making such a large change)
8. Make the change for any consumable item that goes from new to full expended during the adventure. This would have to be regardless of targets, since it could be used on more than one target, even if it's only one at a time. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
Somewhat opposed
9. Make the change for ANY consumable item, including those with multiple uses that aren't fully expended. I have no idea how this would work in practice without coins changing hands instead of just items, so this seems like the least realistic possibility.
Strongly opposed
|
1. Partially in favor, it could get bad or unfair for individuals that don't have a lot in the way of capital -- would they be required to sell gear to cover that cost?
2. Partially in favor, as it is limited to Breath of Life, and there are other condition correctors that may need to be removed 'in-play'.
3. See comment in 1. above.
4. STRONGLY AGREE Note: This is to *allow* not *insist* not *make mandatory*.
5. Partially in favor, see item 1 above.
6. STRONGLY AGREE See note on 4, plus also note that there would need to be table consensus-- no cost-dumping on a player that doesn't want a given effect.
7. Not in favor -- this would become too confusing between potions of Cure, antitoxins, antiplagues, etc, etc... does an Alchemical fire include in this conversation as well, etc?
8. Not in favor -- Single-purchase items on chronicle sheets could be heavily *gamed* even by non-coordinated folks.
9. Not in favor -- WAYYY TOOO MUCH BOOKKEEPING my god it's full of words... and numbers... and ia, ia, Phylor with the thousand tentacular forms this way comes ia, ia!
10. (Bonus Round!) STRONGLY OPPOSED TO POLLS!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Opposed to polls (and everything represented by this poll).
It's isn't even a data point you can give to the CC. This isn't scientific and cannot/should not be used to make a decision. What's the point? We have the thread with people discussing, just leave it there.
|
Strongly in favor of being allowed to replace the item expended with the identical item.
For example, a fully charged set of first aid gloves could be replaced as could a half charged set. First is trivial, second would be possible if the character had their own partially charged gloves.
This should NOT be mandatory but SHOULD be allowed.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like this is going to be another example of something that a few people complained about so loudly that it results in a hard ruling that then nobody really wants to deal with and everyone is mad about. And it will have only come about because a few people needed a ruling on something that is pretty cut and dry now, and fine the way it is.
I strongly oppose changing the way this works now.
Polling approximately 50 people from the forums strikes me as a bad way for campaign leadership to determine rules for all of the Pathfinder Society. We've probably discussed all the angles in the other thread (multiple times), so at this point, lets let them mull it over.
So with all due respect, I'm in the camp that opposes polls. I understand why you started it, but personally think it isn't the correct way to proceed.
On a lighter note, I'm personally going to do a shell game with 1st level identical potions from 3 different characters the next time I play and see how the GM reacts. :)
|
|
1. Make the change for scrolls of Breathe of Life only. Only the person who benefited from the scroll can replace that scroll for the person who provided it.
For
2. Make the change for scrolls of Breathe of Life only. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
For
3. Make the change only for condition removal items (including death, so BOL still counts). Only the person who benefited can replace that item for the person who provided it.
For
4. Make the change only for condition removal items (including death, so BOL still counts). The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
For
5. Make the change for any single use, single target consumable item. Only the target of the consumable item can replace that item for the person who provided it.
Against.- Everyone should be able to chip in to help the dead guy.
6. Make the change for any single use, single target consumable item. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
For
7. Make the change for any single use item, regardless of targets. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
For
8. Make the change for any consumable item that goes from new to full expended during the adventure. This would have to be regardless of targets, since it could be used on more than one target, even if it's only one at a time. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
For
9. Make the change for ANY consumable item, including those with multiple uses that aren't fully expended. I have no idea how this would work in practice without coins changing hands instead of just items, so this seems like the least realistic possibility.
Against. Charging for wand charges is too much math to be worth it.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Make the change for scrolls of Breathe of Life only. Only the person who benefited from the scroll can replace that scroll for the person who provided it.
2. Make the change for scrolls of Breathe of Life only. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
3. Make the change only for condition removal items (including death, so BOL still counts). Only the person who benefited can replace that item for the person who provided it.
4. Make the change only for condition removal items (including death, so BOL still counts). The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
5. Make the change for any single use, single target consumable item. Only the target of the consumable item can replace that item for the person who provided it.
6. Make the change for any single use, single target consumable item. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
7. Make the change for any single use item, regardless of targets. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
8. Make the change for any consumable item that goes from new to full expended during the adventure. This would have to be regardless of targets, since it could be used on more than one target, even if it's only one at a time. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.
9. Make the change for ANY consumable item, including those with multiple uses that aren't fully expended. I have no idea how this would work in practice without coins changing hands instead of just items, so this seems like the least realistic possibility.
1) Opposed to changing BoL scrolls only, but favor it if nothing else.
2) Opposed to changing BoL scrolls only, but favor it if nothing else.3) Favor this as a second place solution.
4) Favor this as a primary solution.
5) Opposed, unneeded.
6) Opposed, unneeded.
7) Opposed, unneeded.
8) Opposed, unneeded.
9) Opposed, wealth transfer.
All this comes down to allowing someone to play the boy/girl scout and "be prepared". Without becoming a wealth drain on the scout.
|
|
Polling approximately 50 people from the forums strikes me as a bad way for campaign leadership to determine rules for all of the Pathfinder Society.
Well, it's a poll and not a referendum. Campaign leadership also has like 300 VO's they can also talk to, who are likely more plugged in to actual tables at cons and game nights than "the forums" are. I strongly believe that they will look at all the discussion and make the best decision for the campaign.
|
|
Prethen, this isn't the discussion thread. See the link in the first post of this thread for 300+ posts discussing the pros and cons.
GM Lamplighter, that was kinda my point. The other thread got so big, with people posting both pros and cons, playing devil's advocate, etc, that it was hard to tell if there was any sort of general consensus. I was thinking this thread could try to take a pulse of which way the conversation is trending, to help PFS leadership factor that information into their decision making process. Yes, it's unscientific, but if a vast majority vote one way or the other, that's still useful information.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
Opposed to polls (and everything represented by this poll).
It's isn't even a data point you can give to the CC. This isn't scientific and cannot/should not be used to make a decision. What's the point? We have the thread with people discussing, just leave it there.
The fact that it isn't scientific doesn't make it useless, or invalid, or any of the like. Unscientific polls have their legitimate uses, and this is one. It isn't being used to explain or to scientifically understand some phenomenon.
All of that said, I'm opposed to all of the options presented here.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that it isn't scientific doesn't make it useless, or invalid, or any of the like. Unscientific polls have their legitimate uses, and this is one. It isn't being used to explain or to scientifically understand some phenomenon.
It should be invalid as a tool as it provides no more information than what's already being collected. Aggregate garbage is still garbage.
This is either qualitative or quantitative data. Just being made of numbers does not make it quantitative, and the small sample size combined with the polling bias makes it nothing more than qualitative data. Since this is qualitative data being discussed in this thread, then there's no reason to have this yet another thread on the same topic mucking up the waters.
The fact that it isn't scientific doesn't make it useless, or invalid, or any of the like. Unscientific polls have their legitimate uses, and this is one. It isn't being used to explain or to scientifically understand some phenomenon.It should be invalid as a tool as it provides no more information than what's already being collected. Aggregate garbage is still garbage.
This is either qualitative or quantitative data. Just being made of numbers does not make it quantitative, and the small sample size combined with the polling bias makes it nothing more than qualitative data. Since this is qualitative data being discussed in this thread, then there's no reason to have this yet another thread on the same topic mucking up the waters.
As a poll it doesn't offer too much. As a survey where campaign leadership can see which known personalities say what in a central place it could have value.
I don't play PFS (get as much gaming as my time can afford from a home game), but in the interest of earning my post and based on previous living campaigns:
I support 1-8. I could support 9 if I thought such a thing would work within the rules. If people won't use something because you can pay them back but won't rather than just because they won't get paid back, that's potentially a problem but it's a realistic in-world problem. If it provides enough value to you, you'll pay for it. If it doesn't, that should factor into whether I should be guilted into using my own resources to give that to you.
|
I would like to be able to pay some of the cost if I fall, but as a Pathfinder I accept the fact that when I go on a mission there is a chance I don't return. It shouldn't be a mandatory option. I also, don't expect a person to pay me for the expendable, but would definitely accept the help should a player feel the need to compensate me for it. I play a Hunter who buys a scroll of BoL before an adventure, if the one I previously bought has been expended, and hand it to the appropriate caster with the expectation that they will use it on any character who falls. Greater good and all that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly incidental, but scrolls of Breath of Life suck. They're practically unusable if the caster doesn't start within 5' of the dead player.
There's a lot of table variation here, but in a Spring Loaded wrist sheathe, then you get out to a move action which is basically the same action economy as the first aid gloves. (I'm on the side it works, but there's been a number of arguments throughout the boards)
