|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea behind this was to allow a party that wanted to spend the resources to ensure party survival ability to do so.
Unfortunately, for some reason the discussion always seems to get sidetracked into 'What if the players are selfish punks that want to game the system'? when the reality is MOST tables I've been at have been more long the lines of 'Oh, hey, that's an AWESOME idea, and we're even COOPERATING by doing this and it might KEEP US ALIVE!'.
The first part of the above comment could be shut down by referring to the new Code of Conduct.
The second is a manifestation of Explore, Report, COOPERATE.
I'm personally not seeing a downside to this?
|
Alrighty, so, it's been a few days now, and I still haven't been able to muster up the attention span to read 9 pages from the other thread.
Can someone quickly pin down why my suggestion earlier is unpopular?
Cleric bought a scroll of Breath of Life three scenarios ago.
Scroll gets used on Fighter.
Fighter (and/or X other PCs) pool together gold to buy a new scroll.
Cleric takes scroll to replace the one they had at the beginning.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
Alrighty, so, it's been a few days now, and I still haven't been able to muster up the attention span to read 9 pages from the other thread.
Can someone quickly pin down why my suggestion earlier is unpopular?
Cleric bought a scroll of Breath of Life three scenarios ago.
Scroll gets used on Fighter.
Fighter (and/or X other PCs) pool together gold to buy a new scroll.
Cleric takes scroll to replace the one they had at the beginning.
Maybe the fighter took a stupid risk, against all reason or common sense (even fellow party members telling him not to do it) and died as a result. Now I am forced to contribute to his raise costs.
Basically it removes my choice about whether or not to chip in, and might encourage reckless behavior.
|
Alrighty, so, it's been a few days now, and I still haven't been able to muster up the attention span to read 9 pages from the other thread.
Can someone quickly pin down why my suggestion earlier is unpopular?
Cleric bought a scroll of Breath of Life three scenarios ago.
Scroll gets used on Fighter.
Fighter (and/or X other PCs) pool together gold to buy a new scroll.
Cleric takes scroll to replace the one they had at the beginning.
I have no problem with that, but that isn't the only thing provided for with the language in the guide.
The big sticking point is what if no one had a breath of life scroll to begin with, everyone pools their funds together so that the party has one, and it doesn't get used?
|
|
I understand. On that, I don't have an opinion.
I'm just asking about this sort of reimbursement.
Nefreet,
There is a school of thought that basically goes something like this:
"Other characters spent their wealth for armor, spell components, gear, or lots of long parties at bars. Character in question spent their money instead on Breath of Life.
It's therefore not fair to them to reimburse them for the money they spent ahead of time to prepare for a worst case scenario. They might come out AHEAD on the deal."
And the reality of the situation is that as originally written, a grateful player couldn't reimburse someone for an expenditure on their behalf.
Now I think the idea is to try and expand the idea of cooperation while minimizing the risk of 'phantom wealth gain' by less than altruistic players.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, again, that assumes reimbursement is forced.
My position is the antithesis.
I'm sure that can be explained in the Guide, so it shouldn't be a sticking point in this discussion.
I agree with you, but in the interest of civil discourse I will try to lay out their position.
-----------------------------------------------------
As they see it, there is currently an unacceptable level of peer pressure driving character spending. People have brought up the idea that characters are pressured into spending their first 2 PP on a wand of Cure Light wounds, whether they want to or not. They expressed the opinion that if reimbursement is possible, peer pressure would force people into reimbursement for things they didn't want to pay for.
For example:
Thief takes solid hit and goes down:
Cleric: I will use my scroll of Cure Serious Wounds on him, he can pay me back later
Thief: I am saving my money, and the fight is almost over, can you just kill the bad guy and then wand me back up?
Cleric: No, heal the thief.
Later:
Cleric: Okay, where is my gold?
Thief: I told you, I didn't want to be healed
Everyone else at the table: He healed you, you owe him, are you going to be a jerk and not pay him back for saving your life?
----------------------------------------------------------
Now, personally, I have not seen the level of peer pressure that is described. I also think that if that level of peer pressure is going on, that is corrosive and needs to be stopped, not hedged around.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
To be fair, it could be even worse if it is run the other way around.
Thief is a 10 year old, cleric is their parent.
Thief runs into every fight taking attacks of op to get into position for back stabs without the AC to evade. Lots of epensive consumables are spent to prevent him from dying. After the mission, cleric pressures everyone else into paying them back with the threat of making the 10 year old cry if they don't.
But again, the solution is to solve the problem dynamic, not try to limit the damage it can do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issue with it is purely mechanical:
Normal Consumable Timeline of Wealth vs Utility:
Purchase -> Gold Value Lost from WBL -> Benefit of Utility realized
Shared Consumable Timeline of Wealth vs Utility:
Purchase -> Benefit of Utility Realized -> Gold Value Lost from WBL
Basically the extreme version of this is a character who carries all his "extra" wealth in consumables. He is prepared for any situation the party could face meaning he doesn't have to be prepared for anything at all. He doesn't have to know or guess what will happen.
After the adventure someone else will cover the cost of the item. This means the benefit of the item is being received before the cost is actually impacting a character's WBL. That gold value also isn't impacting the character until after the adventure is completed meaning all characters are effectively higher WBL because that is when they have received their gold from the scenario.
What makes this change (at the time it was a proposal when I first mentioned this) sound appealing is because it kinda has a 'good feelings' community vibe to it. When we dig into the actual reason it feels this way it is because the entire table is effectively richer using this method by a margin of however many consumables they have brought.
I think this is another step toward characters being even stronger vs current scenario design than intended.
|
|
What makes this change (at the time it was a proposal when I first mentioned this) sound appealing is because it kinda has a 'good feelings' community vibe to it. When we dig into the actual reason it feels this way it is because the entire table is effectively richer using this method by a margin of however many consumables they have brought.I think this is another step toward characters being even stronger vs current scenario design than intended.
And I think this last part is alarmist and inconsiderate towards the idea of building a community, but that's just my personal take on it.
I don't play Spreadsheetfinder. I play Pathfinder. Pathfinders have a simple code.
Explore.
Report.
Cooperate.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
My issue with it is purely mechanical:
Normal Consumable Timeline of Wealth vs Utility:
Purchase -> Gold Value Lost from WBL -> Benefit of Utility realized
Shared Consumable Timeline of Wealth vs Utility:
Purchase -> Benefit of Utility Realized -> Gold Value Lost from WBL
Basically the extreme version of this is a character who carries all his "extra" wealth in consumables. He is prepared for any situation the party could face meaning he doesn't have to be prepared for anything at all. He doesn't have to know or guess what will happen.
After the adventure someone else will cover the cost of the item. This means the benefit of the item is being received before the cost is actually impacting a character's WBL. That gold value also isn't impacting the character until after the adventure is completed meaning all characters are effectively higher WBL because that is when they have received their gold from the scenario.
What makes this change (at the time it was a proposal when I first mentioned this) sound appealing is because it kinda has a 'good feelings' community vibe to it. When we dig into the actual reason it feels this way it is because the entire table is effectively richer using this method by a margin of however many consumables they have brought.
I think this is another step toward characters being even stronger vs current scenario design than intended.
Ragoz, I can see this if people were allowed to reimburse you with gold, but if all they can reimburse you with is a new copy of the expendable, there is no benefit to storing your wealth this way, and a significant risk of tying up all your wealth in a consumable you don't ever use.
|
|
I'll come back a little later to discuss it more. Everyone keep in mind there are 2 different ideas in this thread: The current guide rule as well as Nefreet's.
The issue of replacing the item is this: what is the actual gold loss of your character after purchasing the item? Using this method they don't lose any WBL until the item is both consumed permanently and the gold is removed from their character. They won't suffer the consequences of purchasing that item and not using it until level 20.
Their character is receiving all the benefits of their purchase and not paying actual cost. They just have their gold in consumables which are now 'as good as gold'.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Their character is receiving all the benefits of their purchase and not paying actual cost. They just have their gold in consumables which are now 'as good as gold'.
Their consumables are not 'as good as gold' - they can only be sold at half value. If used, others may contribute to replace the item, but the item is replaced rather than giving the original owner a pile of gold. The owner has his wealth tied up in consumables and may not use that wealth for other things unless he sells them. In regard to the idea that characters receiving the benefit of a consumable during a scenario and paying for its replacement later are receiving a net increase in wealth, I disagree. The original purchaser has made the payment in advance, so he feels the impact on net wealth before the benefit is received. When the consumable is used and other characters contribute toward its replacement, they share in the net decrease in wealth appropriate to the received benefit. This does not increase any one character's wealth, it just distributes the cost so that no one PC takes the full impact.
|
|
Their character is receiving all the benefits of their purchase and not paying actual cost. They just have their gold in consumables which are now 'as good as gold'.Their consumables are not 'as good as gold' - they can only be sold at half value. If used, others may contribute to replace the item, but the item is replaced rather than giving the original owner a pile of gold. The owner has his wealth tied up in consumables and may not use that wealth for other things unless he sells them. In regard to the idea that characters receiving the benefit of a consumable during a scenario and paying for its replacement later are receiving a net increase in wealth, I disagree. The original purchaser has made the payment in advance, so he feels the impact on net wealth before the benefit is received. When the consumable is used and other characters contribute toward its replacement, they share in the net decrease in wealth appropriate to the received benefit. This does not increase any one character's wealth, it just distributes the cost so that no one PC takes the full impact.
The argument is that they are as good as gold because you can get full gold for them from other players when they are used. So you get both full utility value for the consumable and full purchasing power later. So you can now use consumables as a kind of bank -- although you only get to make a withdrawal if the consumable is actually used and if the other players reimburse at full value.
We should all be able to agree on that part -- that's the whole point of this change. The real disagreement is whether that pushes the consumable purchaser *above* WBL or restores them *to* WBL, and that really depends on how you feel about consumables.
My personal opinion is that with the limitations that this only apples to consumables that clear conditions (which needs to be made explicit) this is acceptable. Where this would become abusable is if it applied to all consumables (increasing the range of contingencies that could be negated "for free") and opening it up to alchemists crafting at one third value and being reimbursed for those -- turning a force multiplier into a force exponent.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is suggesting that players be able to reimburse with gold.
The current rule is that players can pool gold to make a purchase. And the requested change is that people be allowed to pool gold to buy items to replace used items.
Everyone is against anything that lets players give other players gold
|
|
Something I allow, and I've see other do is to allow a small pool of money to be set aside for Spell components. Rather than saying for example "I have 200gp of Silver dust, 150gp of ruby dust, a 500gp black pearl, and etc. . ." they instead have a 1,200 gp pool of Expensive Spell Components, which is already spent. (That is, it's not something they can use for something else, they already bought the different spell components, so would need to see them back at half value if they needed that money for anything else.)
Now, obviously this is on the unofficial side, but what if we could do something like this for "contributing to party Rez".
So a given character can devote some of their gold, which is then treated as already spent, pool that can only be used to purchase Scrolls or casting of Raise Dead, Restoration, Breath of Life, and things that directly help a character come back to life or remove a condition to which they would otherwise be counted as dead after the scenario if they still had it. <The "when it hits the fan" Fund>
Any time they want to contribute to buying something for another player, they deduce it from this pool, and only this pool. They can still by a scroll of Breath of Life if they want to, but it's theirs, and only theirs, and they keep it until used.
A scroll of Breath of Life costs 1,125gp. At the start of every scenario, the party as a whole can opt to put in some money, (lets say 200gp each for the sake of argument) to purchase a Scroll of Breath of Life as insurance. If it's not used, they are forced to sell it back, AT HALF VALUE at the end, so each gets 100gp back.
Alternatively, they could also use that pool after the fact to by the same scroll, or the spellcasting if needed. They are not required to, and just like normal they can instead sell gear, pay normal gold, or whatever.
The basic idea being that each character could reasonably throw in something like 20gp with each scenario into their own "When it hits the fan" pool, until it builds up to a few hundred GP, which can only really be used to bring someone back. Since it's already effectively spent, it's something they can otherwise just ignore, but it would also be extremely easy to track, and would alleviate a lot of the issues with Wealth by Level. If a character didn't put any money into their own "When it hits the fan" insurance pool, no one else has to feel bad about not helping out. If they did, and it was already used, it's right there on a Chronicle Sheet. It also allows for a measure of preemptive security, but at a cost.
|
|
No one is suggesting that players be able to reimburse with gold.
The current rule is that players can pool gold to make a purchase. And the requested change is that people be allowed to pool gold to buy items to replace used items.
Everyone is against anything that lets players give other players gold
Yeah but nobody is arguing reimbursing with gold either so it really doesn't do much to call attention to it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something I allow, and I've see other do is to allow a small pool of money to be set aside for Spell components. Rather than saying for example "I have 200gp of Silver dust, 150gp of ruby dust, a 500gp black pearl, and etc. . ." they instead have a 1,200 gp pool of Expensive Spell Components, which is already spent. (That is, it's not something they can use for something else, they already bought the different spell components, so would need to see them back at half value if they needed that money for anything else.)
I'm not trying to argue with you or devalue your comment, but wouldn't those specific components be considered gems and be worth their full value?
|
|
Yeah but nobody is arguing reimbursing with gold either so it really doesn't do much to call attention to it.
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Could you please clarify?
The point that several of us has made is that the rule in the new Guide does not suggest an allowance for cash transfers between characters and none of the proposed changes to clarify the new rules suggest that cash transfers be allowed either. The options being discussed are to allow people to pool resources to purchase consumables in advance (the question then comes down to what happens to the resource if it is not used) or to allow people to pool resources to replace a consumable that was used. In neither of these situations would one PC be giving another PC gold. The first situation could result in an increase of net wealth for one character who keeps an item for which he did not make full payment and so requests have been made to clarify how this is supposed to work.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Yeah but nobody is arguing reimbursing with gold either so it really doesn't do much to call attention to it.No one is suggesting that players be able to reimburse with gold.
The current rule is that players can pool gold to make a purchase. And the requested change is that people be allowed to pool gold to buy items to replace used items.
Everyone is against anything that lets players give other players gold
pH was claiming that pcs could store wealth in consumables, and get it back when the consumable was used by being reimbursed with gold.
|
|
PCs can't even do that for one scenario (buy at the beginning, get used, get reimbursed), because the pooling has to happen at the time of purchase. After that, they're stuck with the items and can't get their gold back. At best, if the item is used (by them or another), it may get replaced.
Consumables don't *have* benefit until they are used, so this is a really strange argument (at least once you know that you can't get gold back for them).
|
|
Can someone quickly pin down why my suggestion earlier is unpopular?
...
pervasive fear
I don't think the idea is either unpopular or that there is a pervasive fear. Some fear a level of peer-pressure equal to CLW wands (which is fairly high), or otherwise don't like more potential to be asked to contribute their gold. Or think this will make PFS too easy I guess is another objection. I don't think those opinions are pervasive or common.
|
|
No one is suggesting that players be able to reimburse with gold.
The current rule is that players can pool gold to make a purchase. And the requested change is that people be allowed to pool gold to buy items to replace used items.
Everyone is against anything that lets players give other players gold
You are completely correct. My mistake.
|
|
I don't think the idea is either unpopular or that there is a pervasive fear. Some fear a level of peer-pressure equal to CLW wands (which is fairly high), or otherwise don't like more potential to be asked to contribute their gold. Or think this will make PFS too easy I guess is another objection. I don't think those opinions are pervasive or common.Can someone quickly pin down why my suggestion earlier is unpopular?
...
pervasive fear
Umm. You pieced together two separate posts that had nothing to do with one another.
|
|
I'm not trying to argue with you or devalue your comment, but wouldn't those specific components be considered gems and be worth their full value?
I was being vague. I'm not sure if dust counts as gems, but the idea is that it cover all expensive components, (but not Foci), for spellcasting, so would also include something like a "lead-based ink worth 50gp" required by Illusory Script or "a small replica of you worth 5gp" for Project Image.
|
|
I was actually talking about a completely new rule to add to the guide to help solve the issues in question. So, rather than buying anything, you are actually just purchasing into a form of insurgency that can be used for yourself or for other players as needed, without needing to worry about who gets what afterwards. You get either full or half benefit of exactly how much you pay into it, which could be nothing.
It's simple. It's easily recordable. And it accounts from the majority of issues and debates I've seen here so far.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
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?
Got me thinking more as an exercise than as any definite suggestion. So off the top of my head....
The contribution each character makes must be recorded as money spent on the chronicle. Items bought using this method that remain unused by the end of the scenario may be disposed of in 2 ways. The item may be sold and each character receives an amount equal to 50% of their contribution. That amount recorded as money gained. Alternatively if the pooled item was the same as an item already owned by a character before it's use, all contributing characters can agree at time of purchase that it may be used to effectively replace such an item. In this case the contributing characters still show their contribution as money spent however the already held item that was used is not recorded as being expended.
W
I didn't read that is was for all items, only items that resolve conditions such as death, disease or poison. I don't want an hour discussion before the game starts on what list of 50 consumables someone wants the group to purchase.
The group can decide to split the cost of a scroll of Breath of Life, if it ends up unused everyone gets 50% of the price back at the end. Think of it as Pathfinder Insurace policy. Lets not open another can of worms.
|
|
I didn't read that is was for all items, only items that resolve conditions such as death, disease or poison. I don't want an hour discussion before the game starts on what list of 50 consumables someone wants the group to purchase.
The group can decide to split the cost of a scroll of Breath of Life, if it ends up unused everyone gets 50% of the price back at the end. Think of it as Pathfinder Insurace policy. Lets not open another can of worms.
This goes against the idea of it being a usable, feisible way for people to have the item available.
I don't see anything in the guide that would indicate buying a potion of fly in advance and reimbursing the cost. Unless you are reading 'This includes pooling money to
buy breath of life or raise dead scrolls or potions for use
in the game.' as 'ALL potions for use in the game', not those related to the sentences above.
I seems like people are looking at a sentence or two in the guide and applying it to a several hundred post thread in a forum, I don't see how you can make that leap.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The item will always have been used, though, so none of what you propose would be relevant.
Sorry? I think we're at cross purposes here. The problem with reimbursement is that a simple 'players may either individually or as a group reimburse another player for a consumable used during the scenario by replacing it like for like' has been on the table for years but always been rejected. With some limits I'd be happy to see something like that but the closest we have got is the new pooling rules.
What the new guide is saying that we may now pool money to purchase a limited if not 100% defined type of consumable to be used in the scenario....used...in the scenario..being the sticking point as it is not clear on what happens if it is not used in the scenario.
In your example it is the BoL scroll bought for the cleric at the end that is not used in the scenario. The question surely rests on how we deal with items bought from pooled funds that are not used?
My idea is that replacement on a like for like basis of an expended item previously bought using normal purchase rules counts as used in the scenario & thus a legal fate for an item bought from pooled funds.
I reckon it makes things simpler if we reflect this by just not marking the normally bought scroll expended rather than adding a fresh one at irregular cost.
To keep items bought for odd amounts of money fouling up ITS's &/or chronicle sheets & to stop ppl abusing the system by overstocking on such items in expectation of 100% resale if the item is unused and not replacing one bought normally it should be sold at the usual 50% loss.
W