Heads up: "Stuck" Prestige Points

[Victor]

I just became aware of a rule today that everyone else probably knows about, but just in case they aren't aware, here is a head's up.

According to footnote 3, on Table 5-4 in the PFS Guide, you can only buy one 750gp = 2PP purchase per scenario, even though the "Spending Prestige Points" section, it says, "For the sake of simplicity, many GMs might consider limiting characters to spending Prestige Points only once per gaming session.".

I understand the difference in the two statements, one is about 2 PP purchases valued at 750gp, the other does not say that it is. So it's not a contradiction or anything, just kind of poorly written and easy to misinterpret.

So here is the upshot, as I see it. If you do not spend your PP when you get them, you are 'stuck' with them and can not use them for a 750gp purchase. If you do not use them right away, you are basically saving them for NON 750 gp purchases, which is all well and good and smart, just something to be aware of.

This assumes every scenario you play gets a full 2 PP and you never fail one, because then you could still spend your previously earned PP.

That's all, not a complaint or a whine, just part of the game. I would not mind if they put a note in the Spending Prestige Points section, however. :)

[Trenloe]

So here is the upshot, as I see it. If you do not spend your PP when you get them, you are 'stuck' with them and can not use them for a 750gp purchase. If you do not use them right away, you are basically saving them for NON 750 gp purchases, which is all well and good and smart, just something to be aware of.
When you say "stuck with [PP]" you're making the assumption that a player wants to always spend 2 PP on a 750 GP purchase and not do anything else with their PP? I think you'll find that it is very rare for people to do this. Once past the first few scenarios players will usually hoard their PP for future use: raise dead, body retrieval after a TPK, vanity purchases, etc..

And the "For the sake of simplicity, many GMs might consider limiting characters to spending Prestige Points only once per gaming session." statement is not just limited to the 2 PP spend for a 750 GP item, this is covering all prestige point spends - to stop players with lots of PP, for example: buying a townhouse in Absalom (15 PP) because it will give some bonuses specific to a certain district in Absalom, then later spend 10 PP to get their own ship (free transport and +2 bonus on Profession (sailor) checks). And, the way this particular statement is phrased it is a guideline not a ruling.

[Victor]

Yep, agree with everything you said. I pointed out the difference in the statements, one obviously not a rule, the other was. "Stuck" is in quotes too because it only means "Stuck for buying the 750gp purchase". I also pointed out that saving PP is a good and smart thing to do. I completely understand how this works and have no complaints. I just wanted others to be aware of it because it came as a surprise to me, only being listed as a footnote to a Table. Pretty important rule to only be a footnote maybe.

And how many wands can a guy use anyhow? Maybe not too many, but the uses for those level 2 scrolls (5 scribblings), or level 3 scrolls (2 scribes) for 750gp each are nearly endless. :)

[Malkavian_Andi]

So here is the upshot, as I see it. If you do not spend your PP when you get them, you are 'stuck' with them and can not use them for a 750gp purchase. If you do not use them right away, you are basically saving them for NON 750 gp purchases, which is all well and good and smart, just something to be aware of.Where exactly do you get that reading from? I don't seee that interpretation in the text you quoted.
Sure, if you get full PP in every scenario, it will result in exactly that, but you are able to spend PP you gained earlier if you end up with less than 2 PP for a scenario. (Which, for example, will regularly be the case if you play on slow advancement.)

[Victor]

Sure, if you get full PP in every scenario, it will result in exactly that
That's all I was saying. It's in there that that is assumed. Your point about slow-tracking is a great one that I had not thought of. :)