Guide 8 Question: pooling gold to purchase items (p. 19)

[GM Lamplighter]

Guide 8 wrote:

Players are permitted to spend character gold to help a party member purchase spellcasting services such as raise dead or remove disease. This includes pooling money to buy breath of life or raise dead scrolls or potions for use in the game.

First, I think that the list of consumables you can pool money for is exhaustive, since it doesn't use "such as..." language?

Second, I'm guessing this means they can be purchased in advance, on spec of them being needed... What happens to these items if they are not used? Who owns them? The only solution that comes to mind is that they get sold back at half price and the money split between those who contributed (pro-rated based on how much they contributed).

[Nefreet]

There is no such thing as a potion of breath of life or raise dead, so that list can't be exhaustive. I would think any condition removing effect (such as remove curse) would be included.

There's no ability to have anything "left over", unless I'm not understanding your question.

EDIT: oh, missed the "purchase in advance". No, I would believe this would only cover removal of conditions.

[Majuba]

I think this is management's way of letting people repay the use of a BoL scroll. Let's not dig too far into this, eh?

[GM Lamplighter]

Well, a scroll of breath of life is pretty useless if you can't buy it in advance. If it is bought in advance and doesn't get used, who keeps it?

Majuba wrote:

I think this is management's way of letting people repay the use of a BoL scroll. Let's not dig too far into this, eh?

Majuba: hadn't occurred to me that's what this is for... if it is, it removes the issue of what happens to it afterwards, since the one purchased with pooled money is replacing the used one. As it stands, people can put together (unequal amounts of) gold to buy one in advance, not use it, and then be left in limbo.

Also, isn't there an item that allows you to reimburse a healing item used on someone else, at a substantial discount? (My search-fu is weak, I thought it was a Silver Crusade trait but it's not.) How does that interface with this?

[pH unbalanced]

It's on last season's Silver Crusade faction card.

[Þórarinn Sigurðsson]

Pathfinder society Field Guide. page 22: The Cost of Beneficence (Fame 10, 1 PP)

It sadly only applies to items used on npc´s, not that it hasnt come in handy on my Silver crusaders to not go bankrupt .

[GM Lamplighter]

pH unbalanced wrote:

It's on last season's Silver Crusade faction card.

Þórarinn Sigurðsson wrote:

Pathfinder society Field Guide. page 22: The Cost of Beneficence (Fame 10, 1 PP)

Thanks - the faction card one only applies to material components of spells you cast and for purchasing spellcastnig services, and the vanity as noted only applies to NPCs, so neither of these conflict with this.

[andreww]

Nefreet wrote:

There is no such thing as a potion of breath of life or raise dead, so that list can't be exhaustive. I would think any condition removing effect (such as remove curse) would be included.

There's no ability to have anything "left over", unless I'm not understanding your question.

EDIT: oh, missed the "purchase in advance". No, I would believe this would only cover removal of conditions.

There is no suggestion within the text on page 19 that this is only for removing conditions after they have occurred. In face it actually says can buy scrolls and potions for use in the game.

This leaves completely open the question of what happens and the end of the adventure to, say, a scroll of breath of life which is jointly purchased but not used. Who actually owns it at the end of the game?

[Socalwarhammer]

Left over scrolls and potions. I can see this really causing a problem in game. Some players may want their 'money' back, while other players don't care. Can the party 'sell' it back for full or half price? I am inclined to allow a full remittance to all party members given the spirit of cooperation- but that is not RAW, so I will go with half resale value for now. I can see this being a constant issue with some groups, while it may never really be an issue with others... expect table variation (GM joke).

This might need a clarification sooner, rather than later.

[Tempest_Knight]

The allowance is all under the section allowing players to help someone else pay for Spellcasting Services...

Given that, you hare pooling resources to help someone else make the purchase, therefore, that player keeps any unused potions/scrolls, as they are the purchaser.

[Ragoz]

I don't know why we went through with something like this.

Worst case scenario:

Retiring level 11 character (PC1) spends full WBL on scrolls which are shared by another character (PC2) paying one gold per item.

They don't use the items during the adventure and PC1 allows PC2 to keep everything since he is 'done' with his character.

PC2 now sells back for 1/2 and has 41k gold from the resale.

But wait! PC1 just wanted to move the gold to his level 7 character.

PC2 spends the 41k on scrolls, plays with PC1 again using the same trick, and gives ~20k to PC1 after the selling for half again.

I was strong advocate against this ever happening and it is very clear this rule wasn't well thought out. I suggest having another look or revoking this.

[FLite]

Ragoz wrote:

I don't know why we went through with something like this.

Worst case scenario:

Retiring level 11 character (PC1) spends full WBL on scrolls which are shared by another character (PC2) paying one gold per item.

They don't use the items during the adventure and PC1 allows PC2 to keep everything since he is 'done' with his character.

PC2 now sells back for 1/2 and has 41k gold from the resale.

But wait! PC1 just wanted to move the gold to his level 7 character.

PC2 spends the 41k on scrolls, plays with PC1 again using the same trick, and gives ~20k to PC1 after the selling for half again.

I was strong advocate against this ever happening and it is very clear this rule wasn't well thought out. I suggest having another look or revoking this.

Except the rule is you get back half of what *you* paid for an item. So PC2 wouldn't get back 40K.

he would get back 5 silver

[FLite]

Further, if it was sold in the same session, the money would be dispersed back proportionately, and if it did last past the end of the session (which I am unclear on) I would have it go with the PC who spent the most (unless it was being used to replace an expended item)

[GM Lamplighter]

All that makes sense, but I don't see how that is the clear rule. If an item is purchased by a group, and not used, someone gets it - there's no basis for it to "go away" like a magical effect. If it gets re-sold, that doesn't help replace a used one like Majuba suggested.

Similarly, I don't think people should be able to sell it back for full price, otherwise no one would ever buy these items *except* during a scenario, to avoid tying up gold in contingency items.

[FLite]

By dispersed back proportionately, I did not mean paid back at full price.

I meant:

750 gp potion
PC 1 paid 50 gp
PC 2 paid 200 gp
PC 3 paid 500 gp.

PC 1 gets back 25 gp
PC 2 gets back 100 gp
PC 3 gets back 250 gp

Example in play:

The PCs are sent out to sneak into someone's home and steal something. their gather information roll indicates that he has strong locks and no one brought a thief. Their plan is to buy a potion of gaseous form, have the fighter drink it, slip inside and unbolt and unbar the door and let everyone in.

They arrive at the house, and the door is swinging gently in the breeze, and there is the strong scent of blood coming from within, where the walls have be rudely splattered (At this point the scenario calls for the local constabulary to arrive, the PCs have to talk their way out of being arrested, track down the killer, and retrieve the item that was stolen that they were there to steal)

At the end of the scenario, no one has used the potion, and the rules do not say what happens to it. I can see the following 3 possibilities, all of which would be legitimate outcomes a Gm could allow pending a rules clarification:

1. The PCs sell it back for half gold, divided up as per above.

2. PC 3 keeps the potion

3. One of the PCs keeps the item, after reimbursing the others for their share.

[GM Lamplighter]

For now, I think I will go with #1. #2 is wealth transfer, which is strictly forbidden ("you may never give..." yadda yadda), and #3 means a player is overcharged for the item. #1 "feels" like an insurance policy - it costs money even if you don't use it.

[FLite]

Consensus among our local VO corp is that Sacramento will be implementing #1 pending further clarifications as the most generous interpretation that prevents abuse.

[Ragoz]

I will also follow #1. There should be a clarification though all the same.

[Sin of Asmodeus]

Never party buying an item ever.
If everyone else wants too, great. I ain't chipping in though.

[Majuba]

Can we all agree this is *useful* for allowing (not requiring) reimbursement to those who expend items, e.g. breath of life or raise dead scrolls or potion of fly?

Can we all agree using this to transfer wealth would be a "bad thing" and quick to get it shut down?

Can we all agree other uses of this should be very very cautious?

Nitpick:

Just to be clear, there is no buying of scrolls other than breath of life or raise dead. It's an exhaustive list of scrolls, an open list of potions. It also says "for use in the game." If it's not used, the pooling isn't allowed. At least, that's one way of reading it.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a series of posts. Regardless of status (whether a volunteer, employee, contributor, partner, or casual poster), it's not OK to throw around personal attacks here. You may disagree with a given viewpoint, but there's no reason to make negatively charged pointed comments like this. Focus on debating content, not slinging these kinds of remarks at each other.

[LoPan666]

So we have a conflict between two rules - one that forbids transfer of wealth and another that allows it under specific, limited circumstances. Normally, the specific rule trumps the general one, but the issue is that the specific, limited circumstances here are a little open ended. I very much like the new rule that we can contribute toward purchasing proactive threat abatement measures like a scroll of breath of life, but determining what happens to such an item if it is not used is not defined in the new rule. I doubt that campaign management intends to allow someone to walk away with a scroll or potion they did not pay for at the end of the scenario, so we need to address that.

The obviously legal solution is for the person who keeps the item to reimburse the contributions of the other players - no wealth transfer occurs so both rules are followed (I don't see how Tempest_Knight sees this as a violation of the new rule, so perhaps he can elaborate). The only situation where I can see that this would be an issue is if the person who ends up with the item did not have enough gold at the start of the scenario to buy it outright. Characters are not normally allowed to borrow against potential scenario rewards to buy items in advance and I could see where this might be subject to abuse.

The second option is to sell the item back. The suggestion that the proceeds of the sale be distributed in proportion to the individual contributions would again follow the rule that forbids wealth transfer. Tempest_Knight appears to think that this is a violation of the rule that allows players to pool resources to buy an item, but I don't see how that follows. Perhaps he can clarify. The problem that I see with forcing the sale is that this acts as a penalty to players who cooperate and are proactive and I don't think we should penalize the type of behaviors we wish to encourage.

Instead of either of these options, I would like to propose an alternative, change the text to read something like, "Players are permitted to spend character gold to help a party member purchase spellcasting services such as raise dead or remove disease. The Pathfinder Society also will allow members to borrow scrolls of breath of life or raise dead or potions by leaving a deposit for the full value of the item. Characters can share the expense and if the item is unused at the end of a mission, it is returned and the deposit is reimbursed." No wealth transfer occurs, no early item access occurs, cooperation is encouraged, and the Society delivers a no-risk benefit to its members.

[LoPan666]

Another alternative would be to change the current text to read, "Players are permitted to spend character gold to help a party member purchase spellcasting services such as raise dead or remove disease. This includes pooling money to replace breath of life or raise dead scrolls or potions that were used in the game." This requires that a party member buy the item in advance but allows the cost to be shared if it is used.

EDIT: On re-reading the thread, this is pretty much what Majuba said.

[FLite]

Pete Winz wrote:

Instead of either of these options, I would like to propose an alternative, change the text to read something like, "Players are permitted to spend character gold to help a party member purchase spellcasting services such as raise dead or remove disease. The Pathfinder Society also will allow members to borrow scrolls of breath of life or raise dead or potions by leaving a deposit for the full value of the item. Characters can share the expense and if the item is unused at the end of a mission, it is returned and the deposit is reimbursed." No wealth transfer occurs, no early item access occurs, cooperation is encouraged, and the Society delivers a no-risk benefit to its members.

This is actually a very bad idea, as it would allow players who are saving up for large purchases to effectively store their wealth in emergency consumables. So, for example, my mage is saving up for a 20K gp ring. That means I can have somewhere around 10K of scrolls and potions, and anything I don't use, I sell back full price when I am ready to buy my ring.

[LoPan666]

Jared Thaler wrote:

This is actually a very bad idea, as it would allow players who are saving up for large purchases to effectively store their wealth in emergency consumables. So, for example, my mage is saving up for a 20K gp ring. That means I can have somewhere around 10K of scrolls and potions, and anything I don't use, I sell back full price when I am ready to buy my ring.

That's a good point. I'm now tending more toward my second suggestion (editing the text to allow gold pooling to replace used expendables rather than advance purchase).

[Kalindlara]

I believe there was a recent thread about that - some posters expressed fears that such a system would become mandatory via peer pressure, a la the 2 PP wand of cure light wounds.

That said, I don't think it's that bad an idea.

[Nefreet]

Party of 6 delves into a Dungeon; the party Cleric has been carrying around a scroll of Breath of Life in their Glove of Storing for several adventures now.

Pregen Merisiel decides it'd be fun to solo a Gibbering Mouther. Gibbering Mouther dispatches Merisiel. Pregen Crowe dispatches Gibbering Mouther. Cleric uses scroll on Merisiel.

Party leaves dungeon. Everything else was a success, so they all receive full rewards.

Party pays equal shares of gold for a new BoL scroll, and the Cleric walks off with it for next adventure.

I think everyone would agree this could be an acceptable, amicable method for handling similar occurrences.

How do we word this properly for the Guide?

[KayTei]

If we are talking about rewording the guide, I would rather see this resolved by substituting "used in the game" for "for use in the game." As soon as you make the second sentence about giving players the ability to negotiate equitable after-the-fact reimbursement for costs already incurred, all these other problems go away.

The owner is the person who bought the thing up front. If no one can afford to, the party doesn't have it - which is not a change from the current state of affairs.

And the players can still help pay for restorative spell services on a forward-going basis, because that's in a different sentence entirely and not affected by the modifications to consumable purchasing.

[Ragoz]

Nefreet wrote:

Party of 6 delves into a Dungeon; the party Cleric has been carrying around a scroll of Breath of Life in their Glove of Storing for several adventures now.

Pregen Merisiel decides it'd be fun to solo a Gibbering Mouther. Gibbering Mouther dispatches Merisiel. Pregen Crowe dispatches Gibbering Mouther. Cleric uses scroll on Merisiel.

Party leaves dungeon. Everything else was a success, so they all receive full rewards.

Party pays equal shares of gold for a new BoL scroll, and the Cleric walks off with it for next adventure.

I think everyone would agree this could be an acceptable, amicable method for handling similar occurrences.

How do we word this properly for the Guide?

Of course we don't all agree.

Sharing Consumables Thread

Many of the people here were also in this thread. I encourage everyone to read through it again.

Leadership should step in and clarify what they intend for the campaign. I don't mind the change as long as it is easy to understand and it is working how they wanted it to work but I feel it isn't.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a couple posts. If you have feedback about moderation decisions, you can post to Website Feedback or email [e-mail].