Sleepless Detective

MerlinCross's page

Organized Play Member. 921 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


RSS

1 to 50 of 921 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Xenocrat wrote:
Aiken Frost wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Aiken Frost wrote:
Can we *please* don't let spellcasters have more skills than the Fighter? Please?
I mostly agree here, but think an exception can be made for Bard, as the 'high skill' caster Class just as Rogue is the 'high skill' martial one.

My only problem with that is the fact that the Bard already is a full caster and I bet his spells are going to give him absurd levels of versatility. And having that many skills alongside full 10 levels of spells will certainly just make the Rogue cry in a corner.

But if there must be an exception about skilled casters, I agree that the Bard should be it.

Spells that duplicate skills now generally either give a decent bonus to the target's own skill check, or give you a bonus a bit worse than a true specialist. You either make your skill guy really, really, good, or the spell lets someone untrained act as a decent second best alternative. There's no more of the spell in isolation beating a skilled PC and rendering his talent obsolete.

Plus, the Occult list likely won't be able to do as much skill wise as the Wizard list, lacking physical essence.

Debatable. We'll have to see what the spells look like at the end of the day, but this is a stance that might loosen by mistake when they're up to splat book 10 or something.

Yeah it's not a worry now but Paizo better make sure to not just invent spells/feats/things in isolation if they want to keep it that way.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Ultimatecalibur wrote:
Voss wrote:
Why is the lingering composition performance check expressed so oddly? Why not X+level rather than the ' convoluted high difficulty based on highest level or GM messing with you?'
I think it is so that the GM can actually make it easier rather than harder. If the Bard opts to use an incredibly appropriate piece of performance for the composition the effect would have an easier time lingering.
Yes, it's mostly to make it easier. In theory I guess if you sing an "inspiring" song to the dwarves of the Five Kings Mountains about the glory of Taldor's Fourth Army of Exploration (which attacked the dwarves) or something contrived like that, you might make it tougher on yourself.

It's another one of those open ended written tools that lets GMs do GM things. Good and bad.

Though I do recall earlier this year or late last year a topic about GMs giving bonuses for good role playing. That topic saw mixed stances, so I wonder how this will go over.


MusicAddict wrote:
kaid wrote:
Voss wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Stone Dog wrote:

So Muses are an alternate way of saying "your characters passion" and that passion can be hung on whatever sort of narrative hook that you like. I like it.

As for what makes martials stand out in combat, while all characters share the same progression bonuses to dice rills, it feels like PF2 is focusing more on breadth of ability rather than just big numbers. At a range the elf wizard and the human fighter might be hitting the target roughly equally,but the fighter will have more tricks up their sleeve in actual adventuring conditions.

Which combined with getting more proficiencies on leveling is why I'm not bothered if fighters don't get as many proficiency ranks in skills at level one, at least if their weapon skills feel like actual skills in play.

Not only will the fighter have more tricks, but even the differences they have can lead to some pretty significant results.

For instance, suppose the elf wizard is pretty tooled up on Dexterity and his bow and can hit a solid challenging opponent on a 10 (pretty good for a wizard!) and the fighter is ahead by +3 on accuracy. The wizard is going to do pretty well on that arrow (especially since he can cast a spell and then shoot each round as sort of a freebie). But that fighter is going to do 50% more damage on average just from the accuracy, without any of his tricks.

Why +3? Can't the wizard just prioritize dex over int to close that gap(since stats don't give bonus spells and its presumably possible to just avoid save based spells)?

Are buff spells eliminated in PF2 that a spellcaster can't boost rolls/give higher bonuses? It would seem odd if all of those old personal buffs are missing (especially since bless isn't missing...)

I am pretty sure that extra +3 comes from weapon proficiency. Fighters get their ranked up proficiencies for weapons incredibly fast compared to others. So basically if the ability stats are equal then
...

The argument is going to however be at the end of the day; "Is this equal to or not, Magic".

If with a simple spell, maybe two, a Muscle Wizard can tie or surpass Fighter while still having access to extra casting and other abilites that are better than "Walk up and hit things" than Fight will still get kicked down to the useless bin. Even more so if God Wizard is still a thing.

This is, however, something we have to wait and see. The Stamina system was something they tried to do to help Martials out so the Tricks Fighters get can build off of that.


I can't say much about this. Don't have that much experience with Bards outside of the meme of "Well Half-Everything has to come from somewhere" and everyone turns to the Bard. Well I mean I can bring some things up but this is more questions than speaking from concern, worry, or railing against something.

1) So they get a spell(s?) at the same rate the others do. They learn them the same way? Wizards and Sorcerers seem to still have a bit of difference between how they pick up stuff, how do bards do it?

2) I think the changes will kick Bards further into the magic/support section. Good to some but others that liked switch hitting as a Bard might be out of luck until Skald comes along. We'll have to see how it looks with the feats/abilities and data though.

3)"The ally is quick and can use the action to Strike, Stride, or Step." So... attack, move, or 5 foot step? Move can maybe be run? That's what we're going with? If so I missed that, and I think might cause a bit of a speed bump when it comes to relearning. No seriously, another system called Move, or move like actions, Shifts. And it took my group awhile to wrap around that 1 change in a sea of new terms we had to deal with.

So yeah. Can't really get worked up about this one. Only reason I have some bard knowledge is because I tried looking into the Bard Channel archetype. Hope the changes are good enough to make them not be discount Rogue. Oh, well, in most community causes; Upgraded Rogue.


Think it's a weird thing that we seem to need codified. A lot of PF2 seems to be just 'foolproofing' things we just winged it to better or less degrees of success. Though I'll say I have yet to see a group that takes it to the insane degree of take 20 on every 5 foot step.

It's another tool in the kit. Some will use it, some won't, some will complain, others will praise.

Me? I don't see it being used at my table. Don't have a need. Though if a GM actually takes out a stop watch or timer for these modes, thats a cue to leave the table.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
They shouldn't and your players should ask you about spells that come from a splatbook talking about Other Planets/Planes.

Sure, but the big problem is that one of the most popular SRDs can't legally name check things like "Karzoug" or "Eox" or w/e but they absolutely can put "Rare/Uncommon outside of the plane(t) where this spell was developed" which will signpost "hey, ask the GM".

MerlinCross wrote:
But I'm yoinking this. Sounds like a great plot hook. People suddenly waking up with spell knowledge they have no idea how they know, could make for some interesting ideas.
It's a reasonable plot hook, but at the same time one probably shouldn't be giving the sorcerer spells they have little use for without it being the player's idea. Like "a useful spell, with weird implications" is a fine hook to go investigate something, but "this spell only works on triaxians" probably is not.

I think that's a problem with SRDs in general. While I'm not sold on the idea of Rarity, at least this will give the SRDs a reason to add a "Ask your DM" tag rather than leave me puzzled as to why they didn't. Or at the very least, not have to ask my players to double check what book it came from.

SRDs are good but gosh could they use some cleaning up at times.

As for the plot Hook, hmm I dunno. I think allowing 1 spell to effect Triaxian could be a very good hook/arrow to point them at researching just WHAT a Triaxian is and where do they come from. At the very least, have that info be given in character to them to send them on their way, or give it to an NPC.

Hang on this is far more interesting to me than Rarity, bbl, writing up an idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:

But that bad gm will be a bad gm regardless. If they say "yes" and then don't let you have it later thats the same thing. Everything can be twisted by bad gms, designing around them just ruins it for every one else. If you can find me someone with a bad gm who for some reason still has them gm for them I'd love to here from them.

The book isn't replacing discussion. And rarity having different meanings only happens if its meanings aren't put out in full in the book.

I don't believe choices will be more standardized. I can take a build from the net (and why is this a bad thing if the player likes to do that anyway?) and it will likely only reference Common (or uncommon things that you can get through mechanics) choices for generalism sake. Then at lvl 5 my GM gives me this awesome Rare thing! That will change everything and goes against standardization.

Check out RPGhorror stoies. You'll find a lot of people that put up with bad GMs for way longer due to wanting to play, being new, being friends outside of game, etc etc. It does happen. Though if you actually want to hear, I'll go ask my friends for some experiences. As for me, I really wanted to play Strange Aeons even though few people RP'd, the GM had us on tracks, quoted the books to us, and just really didn't sell the theme of horror and fear. As for his actual buying restrictions, didn't even get to that point. Game ended in book 2 at the actual town. Why did I stay? Looking back it's easy to say "Should have left". But again, I really wanted to play that AP. So staying with bad GMs DOES happen.

I see something Rare. I skip over it. The book says it's hard to get, why go ask the GM now. I will..... agree on the different meanings. But I don't believe they can put an actual ruling on that. What does finding Uncommon require a 20+ Knowledge Local check? Can Rare stuff only be put in dungeons? I really don't think they actually CAN put actual number rules to it. I can be wrong.

...I'm having an issue here. How does randomly getting a reward by GM fiat go against standardization? How does restricting choices not make players look at the remaining and go "Okay what is best from this list?" And then color coat those choices into guides for people to follow? I mean yeah, 2 wizards in 2 games might have different spells given to them by the GMs. And then you look at their base spells to see copies of the same spell book. As for why it's bad..., I mean I use guides to start with, to get the idea of how it plays. I just dislike seeing someone follow a guide closer to 100%. Is that your character, or is it the character of someone who min max that you're just piloting?

That's a discussion for another day though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

I like being able to say to a player "the rules say X" when they protest that my campaign design is being arbitrary. And yes, there are players who get up in arms over having to go on a quest to find a specific item rather than just check it off a list and having bought it. The former takes time. The latter is just playing Dungeons and Diablos - something I detested from the 3.5 version of DND which encourages speed gaming - get everything done as quickly as possible because your buffs are going to run out in three minutes.

There being a specific RULE in the books turns the argument from "you are being arbitrary and unfair for not letting me have this" to "well I don't like this rule and I think you shouldn't use it." Hmm, what does this ultimately do?

It shifts the onus from the GM to the player. Before the player could have a valid point. Was I unfair for not allowing Raise Dead to be commonly available in my games? Was my decision to not use a generic gaming world with all the magic available actually detrimental? Should I sacrifice my setting because I'm forcing my vision down the players' throats?

Now it becomes "you are upset because you don't like these rules." The GM can take a closer look at the argument because it is no longer about the GM, it is about the player. Is their argument valid in protesting this RULE, or is it the player is upset because they can't get that little toy?

Any player that fights you on your world that much is GOING to fight you on Rarity too even with some fancy new Tag rule. "You should make it Common because it's always been common, and you're removing player agency and choice, and..."

More sensible players just don't bother asking. Maybe a few times but it's just easier to pick up the common stuff(Which is supposed to be just as good). Which leads them picking the same things again and again each game because well, I will HAVE access to that. I look forward to the Wizards all having the same spell list. Again.

Tangent101 wrote:

BTW, Rarity doesn't need to just be magic items. Nor does Unique items. Let's take some of the firearms that players could acquire in Book 5 of "Reign of Winter" - now let's say a player brought back a rifle and some ammunition as a memento.

That rifle is now Unique in the Golarion setting. In order to GET that rifle, a player would have to track down one of the heroes who fought to free Baba Yaga and convince them to part with their memento, either offering them a lot of money for it or try to steal it.

It's a good rifle. It's better than mundane firearms in the campaign setting because it was created by people who have crafted guns for centuries rather than novices who haven't even begun to think about mass production of firearms. It isn't any better than a 10d6 Fireball Wand - if anything, that wand is probably the better weapon in many circumstances. But it's Unique.

Now let's say that character is a Gunsmith and carefully manages to take it apart and learns something from the manufacture of that rifle. They may be able to replicate a bit of it. Their own next-generation rifles will not be as good as the original... but will still be far better than the firearms currently out there. If they are able to put that rifle back together it is still Unique and it may very well be other firearms built along that lines will have a greater chance of misfiring and do just a little bit less damage.

We now have a prime example of Unique items and how they can be replicated... but still remain unique. :)

And you can't do this now? No really why can't you do this now? What is stopping you from doing this, right now, in Reign of Winter?

Besides everyone just handwaving it to the point you can probably buy side rifle from a village in the middle of no where and also pick up 15 Ioun Stones to go with it at the same time. And you have to buy 15, that gives you an Artifact half off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:

Merlin I'm finding you contradictory again I'm afraid. But it could be my lack of understanding.

You seem to be against shopping lists and builds, but don't like a system that is disincentive to that because not every build option can be assumed. You seem to be pro player/gm discussion but dislike the creation of a set shared language to do so. Bloat options are bad, but so to is the rarity system which fundamentally slows this process?

To be fair, I dislike seeing a system put into place to fix a problem the community had before only because they seemed to ignore the systems already in place, and everyone seemings to think this will go over well after handwaving it after so long.

I'm against shopping lists and builds when they are just assumed. I'm also against a system that lets a lousy DM shadowban stuff and have the rules back him up on being a jerk about it. As an example, my GM let me actually make a golem, and has allowed me to tinker with it. Thank you GM. If he had said "No, I don't want Golems" okay I would have been a little upset but understanding. Might switch character idea but okay playbable. If the GM had said "Sure you can, it's just Rare" and I found out later that all my work is for nothing because he's not going to let me have it, well I'd be more upset than the just NO after wasting possibly levels and resources. Rarity is a tool not a solution. Good GMs can make use of it, much like Bad Gms can but we don't care how that effects players it seems.

I am pro discussion. Why do we seem to want to have the book replace that? Don't talk to me for a reason why, the book tells you no. And even if this is a shared language, again I point to the different slang at each table. Let's say Wands are Uncommon. That means something different to you, something different to me, and something different per each GM and table. Heck I'm not a fan of PFS but it's gonna be interesting to see how they balance Uncommon in 1 spot vs Common in another.

Bloat options are bad, when half of them are ignored anyway by the community math. Throw on Rarity, which restricts things even more, well I think it's going to make for clear choices of "Take this, this is best" when it comes to builds. You have narrowed the bloat, but also helped the choices become far more standardized.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
edduardco wrote:
As a side note, I think this further cements that Sorcerers in PF2 are not really spontaneous anylonger, they just don't prepare spells, and that's all. RIP spontaneous casters.

I mean, the reason I like sorcerers is "you don't have to prepare your spells, you're just ready to go". Not "you simultaneously have awareness of every spell, even ones developed on other planes or planets and have never been cast on Golarion."

It seems like *some* limitation on "what spells sorcerers can pick up on level up" being roughly "the spells the sorcerer in question is potentially aware of" is warranted. Like if some Bone Sage on Eox comes up with a spell for "doing certain things in an airless environment" or some Druid on Triaxus invents some way to make transitioning between seasons easier, people who have never left Avistan should not be waking up with unbidden knowledge of these spells.

They shouldn't and your players should ask you about spells that come from a splatbook talking about Other Planets/Planes.

But I'm yoinking this. Sounds like a great plot hook. People suddenly waking up with spell knowledge they have no idea how they know, could make for some interesting ideas.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Creating hard challenges and getting better stuff because of it is a positive. It improves the game. Its kind of lazy to expect to get whatever you want just because you want it. Its far more satisfying to earn it. I think the concept of having to put more effort into getting extra special and rare loot will only improve the game.

Maybe if GMs and Players treated some sections of the book as less of a vending machine we could actually GIVE cool stuff.

But we have Rarity for that now. And up to 10 or more years of programming that idea from people.

Your experiences seem quite different from mine. Your reasoning doesn't make sense to me.

Might be because the lines are starting to blur between people I'm talking to, and some past arguments. That's on me. Lemme see if I can't clear it up a bit.

So, at least to my understanding, there's some ways to limit spells(Research) or magic items(Random rolls) in PF1. I admit the Researching spells rules might have come later so maybe people just didn't care to use them(I found it on the SRD but I think it's in Game Mastery).

These rules, rolls, and issues seemed to however, get in the way. Or were too much work, or tedious. Some of this is fixed with some apps or tools made for it, years after possibly, but this was deemed not worth it, and handwaved. Or if something was locked out of player reach, the complaining and the arguing would start.

So now, we have a system that looks to takes care of all that limiting busy work. That's actually a good thing believe it or not given my stance on the matter. Not an issue for my tables and decent thing for new GMs and players(If not misused). Find it odd more than anything. However...,

How long have people just played with accepting everything on the spell list is ripe for use? That "Ding, I know it" is the law of the land? That the vending machine/walmart of magic shops is a GIVEN for every table it seems?

So yeah, Rarity will allow easier rules for the GM to give out awesome/cool stuff. But with some groups/players..., well they've gotten used to the one stop shop way of doing things. And currently they can keep doing that if they wish. But you get a GM that likes Rarity and will use it, and a player or two that isn't willing to budge on "how it always was" well, that's gonna cause issues.

That's fine. They can go find another table. But from what I've seen this was a GIVEN, and wide spread apparantly. I don't know how useful/used Rarity is actually going to be depending on how unwilling people are going to be against something they've just accepted as "Default" for so long.

Does that clear it up a bit? If not, well I'll come back to this after I get some sleep and clearer head. Maybe with a PM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
@MerlinCross: How is the GM stating "I do not allow that spell" differ from the GM not including that spell as it's a Rare or Uncommon spell? Seriously, if a GM doesn't want a spell then they will state it. Players can complain all they want about how unfair it is... but that doesn't change matters.

The idea of "Okay I can't get that" vs "Oh I might get that". I'm sorry I would take a flat no over getting to hmm let's go with level 10, before I realized "Oh DM had no intention of letting me get that".

Tangent101 wrote:

For instance: I ran an AD&D campaign where Resurrection was extremely rare. There was an in-game reason for that due to the God of Healing being murdered and the Goddess of Death (who isn't evil, mind you) gaining his Portfolio (thus being the Goddess of Death and Healing). The players came across a Scroll of Raise Dead. It wouldn't work unless a God empowered it, so they went on a quest to try and convince the new Goddess of Healing (daughter of above Goddess of Death - long story) to empower the spell. It would have worked but they killed a unicorn that some elves were riding while attacking the party. She got pissed and refused to empower the spell, so they ended up going another route to eventually get their companion back.

Under the Pathfinder 2 rules I can state "Resurrection is a Rare spell" and that explains things. Now there are plenty of players who would insist that in an AD&D setting they have every right to use the spell Raise Dead or Resurrection because it's in the books. It doesn't matter that my setting had a dead God of Healing, a God-War as a result of this, and thematically an explanation for limited access to healing and no real access to Raise Dead. The players could end up disrupting my campaign because they feel it is unfair that their character or their buddy's character was dead and that they'd have to go on a long quest to get their friend back.

So you, LIKE the fact you can get away with not having to explain plot points about your world? First example I get a good setting idea. PF2 "Oh it's Rare" tells me... that it's just hard to get. No reason why just "it's hard to get". Your players can also do this in PF2, I don't see how this changes anything. "Ugh we have to go do this LONG quest we didn't want to" sounds about the same in both manners.

Tangent101 wrote:
Having a rule that states X (spell or item rarity) helps the GM keep things in order. The GM can choose to waive a rule if they so desire but the rule is still there and they can state "this is a one-time event because of X" (say a background aspect) and allow it for that one time but still have the option to say no because it's in the rules.

That we need a written rule for this now doesn't give me much hope that some aspects of the game/players will change.

Tangent101 wrote:
2. The GM can then state "You can't use that because it's not available." When the player complains the GM can say "it states X in the rules." End of argument. If the player comes up with an effective argument as to why they should be granted an exemption, then good. If it's just whining and powermongering? Too bad. Rules exist to create a framework from which we game.

No one seemed to care about the rules before, why care now because of another extra tag. I don't see why this suddenly stops the problem.

Tangent101 wrote:
3. Not all Choices are for Players. For instance, the Red Mantis Prestige Class was not intended for players, but for NPCs. In the Red Mantis write-up it STATED as such. Just because something is in the books doesn't mean players get to use it.

So wait, it's stated not to be used by players. In the actual write up for it. And some players would... still try to be the class?

Yeah sure, adding a "Rare" to that class is surely going to stop that.

Tangent101 wrote:
4. We'll see.
Tangent101 wrote:
5. That's not an effective argument.

No but it does at least help explain why I see people saying this is good as weird when I did something close and got some flak about it.

More to the point, I don't believe everyone is going to be so fast on the use of this. How many years have we had it THIS way and now we have to do it THAT way? I'm not saying riots in the streets but to swap from Vending machine style to this well, I'd like to see how that plays out going forward. I suppose this can be put onto point 4.

Tangent101 wrote:

As for the time for spell research? I didn't remember it. I have no idea where it was. So it doesn't matter. I will say this: if a spell is Uncommon it should take longer to research. If a spell is Rare then it should take even more time.

If it is Unique then it should be something which takes months or years to create - you are talking about what is essentially breaking research. It is akin to Elon Musk building a rocket that can land and then be reused. You are not just recreating someone else's work, you are designing something brand new using concepts that haven't been shown before and that may end up eventually in hundreds of spellbooks. It is a Masterpiece in spell creation.

That's not something that you just whip out in a week.

If it going to take them that long to learn and you're never going to give them time to actually learn it; to me that inspires far more bitterness that than outright banning it.

I would assume you'd have less complaining if you just remove the thing from existence(Or make it so players can't use it) rather than letting them get it as a reward and then never let them use it. How bitter is the wizard going to be if you just keep rushing him out the door, making him waste his downtime and resources when the fighter just found a magic sword that they didn't need to learn how to swing, it's a sword.

Now I do agree, learning a spell shouldn't be "DING, I GOT IT!". But really, if it's so hard for the PCs to either learn or make use of it, why let them try to have access to it?

Congrats, you let them have "Blood Money". It just takes you 5 years to learn(More if you get the skill checks poorly). Yes I can understand putting the limit there, but I can't understand WHY you'd give it to them in the first place in such a case.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Creating hard challenges and getting better stuff because of it is a positive. It improves the game. Its kind of lazy to expect to get whatever you want just because you want it. Its far more satisfying to earn it. I think the concept of having to put more effort into getting extra special and rare loot will only improve the game.

Maybe if GMs and Players treated some sections of the book as less of a vending machine we could actually GIVE cool stuff.

But we have Rarity for that now. And up to 10 or more years of programming that idea from people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

But "Hey, that spell is rare, you can only get common spells from level up" is going to go over a lot easier than having to explain the context of that spell without spoiling RotRL in case you haven't played it but might want to.

I think there's fundamentally a difference between "GM says you can't have the thing you want" and "you can't get rare stuff by default, but the GM can include whatever rare things as rewards as they want." I'm still going to want to give players the stuff they want, it's just that more of that stuff is going to live at the bottom of the dungeon than in the market after you've sold off all the stuff from the dungeon.

"Shopping and skills checks" are kind of the least interesting ways to acquire stuff, after all.

I would think "Pick spells from Core, come to me if you want splats" would go over the same way but it seems that is FAR to much work for people.

And yes there is. The first is "I can't have" and the second is "I might have". And that "Might" varies from GM to GM. I brought this up before; the rules as is might make it easier but I'm willing to bet I can get a couple GMs that come up with just how easy to hard something Uncommon is. I'd rather take the flat No than see which way the GM lands.

I will agree with about the shopping bit. That it will be harder to get. But as someone that didn't run the shops like vending machines to begin with or at the very least let them act as paths to plot points, I found the "Walmart" approach to be silly. So yeah this might make it easier for GMs to kill that but um... guys? You really think that players will just be totally cool with this change? Players that seem to complain about other ways of limiting their shopping/spell runs? This system suddenly makes it good thing in their eyes?


Currently, yes. For the forseeable future, yes.

None of the games I'm in can convert due to setting or characters at this time.

I also still have ideas I want to try which is anyone's guess as to when I can try them in PF2(Cough, Everything Brawler/Alchemist).

But more to the point, I haven't seen anything in the blog posts that made me jump and say "I need to play it for THIS reason(s)" or things I already do for my own actual home games with homebrewing or rules they put out.

PF2 seems to fix things that aren't broken at my table outside of a few things. And I can convert those to PF1 with some work. I look forward to seeing what alchemist stuff I can port over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
On rereading the blog, one thing stands out - the dilemma of a party emerging from some ruins with a spell which no one has seen in thousands of years. Just the question of "what do you do with it, to disseminate or hide the knowledge, to use it for the greatest good, or get the highest price from it is a great roleplaying opportunity and something that was literally impossible to do in PF1.
How's it impossible? I see nothing in the rule book that prevents it.
Because there's literally nothing which prevents a sorcerer from straight up "having Blood Money pop into your head" when they leveled up in PF1, short of GM fiat (which some people seem super-allergic to, I guess), but now there is?

GM Fiat(Which is so allergic now they have to nail it into the core rule books to actually do now), player not thinking of doing so, player shockingly not have read through the AP to see it's a spell, players never seeing it on Guides(I asssume it's not listed haven't checked), never actually using the spell(haven't played through the AP, how often is it used?)...

But if you mean for PF2, it's called oddly enough GM Fiat. They just renamed it to Rarity for some reason.

Though if I had to be honest, that might be more on the online sources of not putting a disclaimer on such spells. I mean for Iomedae's sake they tend put the Campaign traits in a separate section they should at least put Campaign/Plot spells into a side list or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:

I use Hero Labs.

It makes the game a lot easier in some ways - bookkeeping becomes far easier and I can look things up fairly quickly and also print out character sheets for players.

But it also makes certain things more difficult. The sheer number of spells available can make it increasingly difficult for players to make choices when leveling up. Believe it or not, but choice is not always a handy thing for many players, especially more casual players who haven't memorized the books.

I suspect Hero Labs will have an option to click on a "Common Spells only" function so when someone levels up, then the spells that are Common are the ones that show up. This reduces choice which speeds leveling. (Mind you, I got around this with my Sorcerer player seeing she had a Cold theme (her character was from Irrisen) so I'd suggest spells that had Cold descriptors or that I thought would be of use for the campaign... and let her decide. She'd have a half dozen choices.

Meanwhile my Cleric player basically just memorized a few spells multiple times and ignored 90% of what was out there. She didn't want Choice. She wanted to just kill things and have fun. The game was a means of destressing for her and leveling up became stressful.

Only one player ever bothered learning spells and the like, and he was a bit of a powergamer to be honest. He's also the one making the most noises of distaste on PF2. He naturally hates the Common/Uncommon item or spell system.

Having Common/Uncommon/Rare encoded into the rules themselves means that Third Party systems will incorporate it as well. This makes my job easier and makes it easier for my players. So for those of you who are protesting it... let me ask you. Why is this a problem?

Would you like a list? Okay.

1) GM bans Rares. Gm never actually says he bans them but never gives them out. Player(s) hope to get something from said list but will never actually get it they just don't know it. Fair? I can probably think of other examples but they kinda boil down to; Good GM uses it THIS way, Bad GM uses it THAT way. Issue is, if I'm reading it right, they are both correct by RAW now.

2) Player Ignores Rarity. You will still have players that just ignore the tag anyway when making characters and leveling them. That's just how it is. They either ignore out of ignorance(Which can be fixed) or blind zeal(which is harder to break). This system doesn't fix that issue though it does give the GM something else to point at and say "No because of X". Which the problem player won't care about anyway, they already ignored the "X Race/Group" rule.

3) More Choices, oh wait. For a game that's supposed to be big on customizing and not talking them away, and how more options is good for the game; we're suddenly cheering that those options are now far easier to ... simply not have? Oh wait, wait, rephrase; Made harder than checking a box yes, though the difficulty of actually getting is left up to the GM. .., k.

4) Unintended effects. I'm actually interested in seeing what the community/PFS think will do with this. I suppose one way to kill any neo big six is to just slap them as Rare, or worse Unique. I'm also interested in seeing what the GM/Player opinion will be. How much does this change building characters over time? Does the GM risk letting the party have something Uncommon to Rare that an enemy had? How much of a side quest are the players willing to go through for something that was common/somewhat expected? How far is the GM willing to let what should be a side quest go on for? All of the worries in this slot are chalked up to "Have to wait and see".

5) Bitterness. Okay yes this one is personal. I have said that one of the ways I curb CLW spam is limiting the ability to find them. I basically just moved them to Uncommon. This seems to be however a bad move on my part from some of the responses I saw over some of the topics. So everyone's cheering for something I did and got flak for. K.

Tangent101 wrote:
One thing to consider also. Anyone could try to learn Blood Money by creating their own spell. But how long will that take? Why should creating a whole new spell without any outside notes take only a week or two? Even a low-level new spell should take at least a month and probably multiple months to create. This is not something a player could do while adventuring. So they have a choice: Do they try to create a new spell? Or do they go out adventuring?

*Cough*

Quote:

Independent Research

A wizard can also research a spell independently, duplicating an existing spell or creating an entirely new one. The cost to research a new spell, and the time required, are left up to GM discretion, but it should probably take at least 1 week and cost at least 1,000 gp per level of the spell to be researched. This should also require a number of Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) checks.

But that's not fun, let's hand wave it away. Like so many crafting rules it seems. Unless you really want to cripple magic users by not only having them take weeks to months to learn a spell but also limit what they can learn to what they find.

I see Sorcerer being played far more often if that's the case. Or Divine.

Tangent101 wrote:
And if they do stay and create their spell and convince their comrades to spend time back home doing stuff... well, the world doesn't wait on heroes. If some wizard were trying to create a new spell during Rise of the Runelords, I'd have their home base end up attacked by Karzoug's forces or the like. Remind them that they have an adventure waiting for them... and that the clock is ticking.

I'm just going to assume you would do this to any Crafter that needed weeks to get their stuff done and didn't just want to single out the mages. In either case, yeah the world won't wait for you. There's going to be times when you can't take a week off, when things are measured in hours not days. I think it's poor showing to never give the party a chance to do downtime.

Don't worry though, they made sure to define just what Downtime Mode is for PF2 so GMs know just what to do when it comes time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
On rereading the blog, one thing stands out - the dilemma of a party emerging from some ruins with a spell which no one has seen in thousands of years. Just the question of "what do you do with it, to disseminate or hide the knowledge, to use it for the greatest good, or get the highest price from it is a great roleplaying opportunity and something that was literally impossible to do in PF1.

How's it impossible? I see nothing in the rule book that prevents it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel that GMs have always had the right to limit access to certain things, and while tagging items by rarity makes this easier to do, its certainly better than just doing it arbitrarily.

I don't think "one GM might limit access to rarer stuff" as more of a problem than "one GM might ban several classes" (I didn't allow Gunslingers or Summoners).

The problem is in my example, they are all Rare and they are all correct in how they do it withing rules and GMing.

But to expect Uncommon and Rare to be the same across all tables thanks to this new system is a silly assumption.

I also think that "One GM might ban several classes" is actually better than "One GM might lead on that you can get this Rare thing you want and never give it too you.".

At least then I know I can never get it and plan for it rather than casing after a carrot that never actually existed in the first place. Save now GM as the core shield of "It's Rare" rather than just being called out for being a jerk.

I can see this system being useful but I can also see the ways it can allow for poor behavior. Or just not fix the issue of Bob asking for Fey Foundling even though I put it as Rare stop asking me Bob, no I don't want to hear how your character got kidnapped and learned it that way, you'll never bring it up yourself in game Bob!

I still say though, this will be a issue from table to table. Even if that issue is just "This works for us, no problem". This isn't something mathed out that we can argue. This is more "How do you run your game and what do these words mean to you".

I put Alchemist Fire as Rare for a city to sell/have. I bet I could get several posters here to each come up with varying ways of how easy to hard it can be to get it. And then still have all those be correct in the reading of the rules but wrong because I did it This way while having my way be correct as well.

Sigh, I don't know. I can't say how this will play out but I don't think this is going to be a wide reaching change and improvement on the game. Could also have no effect on the game what so ever. This is more world building for home games and as for PFS...., well I don't care about PFS so they can figure out how to deal with it themselves.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Why are we assuming things about a limit on access to uncommon stuff in games without seeing literally any rules for this?

Like one of the benefits of stuff being marked "uncommon" is that this signposts "Here are the things you should justify in your backstory" as opposed to the things there's no reason to.

Because it's uncommon? That's kinda what the word means. Or at least implies, the usual take away of the word.

Now it doesn't seem to be a HARD limit written into it by Paizo themselves. I don't see anything on the blog that says "PCs can only have X Uncommon items".

But when you qualify something with a tag, especially with rarity, you can easily just say that. I mean, why actually GM when you can just limit very easily now. This is a bad move on the GM's part(To me) but it's not that far of a reach to be unheard of. Especially now as if you look around you can probably find ban lists of varying items/spells/classes. Just slap it as Uncommon or Rare and never give it to the players and feel good that you didn't 'ban' it.

So yeah, something's uncommon. That tells me I can't buy it at the local walmart(Though why did we have the walmart anyway, oh yeah players didn't like limits but will like this cause reasons?), but this also means I probably can get only a handful rather than a barrel. Or at least that's how my mind reads it as. Depending on what said Uncommon item/spell/thing is, that's fine possibly good as they have to be smart with them.

I might not like this and have concerns but most if it will have to wait until after we see the Rarity lists. I'll also admit my worries are based around player/GM behavior but Paizo really can't change that much now can they.

Unless they're a cabal of Psychics in hiding looking to unleash some other wordly god if they can get enough people playing the game at once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Geosharp wrote:
And this is my other concern. I've bought several books from Paizo without really knowing the contents, just that they are heavily Alchemy or Kineticist related. Now I won't. I'll wait for them to come out, see how much is Uncommon (otherwise known as off limits outside of homebrew) and then decide.

This is a worry I do have now even if it's a mental tick(Because those are so hard to get over it seems).

It's not "Hey this thing is cool, I'll use it/see if I can" it's "This is cool I'll use... oh Uncommon. No wait rare. Well guess I'm not using that.".

Do I believe I should have access to everything? No not really. But if I see something that's marked Uncommon or Rare, I'm less likely to think I can actually get that. Depending on what it actually is, I just won't bother to bring it up because of the tag now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Juda de Kerioth wrote:

the fact is that putting rules into the games that we were using before, means that you dont have more house rules to run with.

i like the idea, but i feel that gms needs to work on their own houserules for sure.

There are a lot of Rulelawyers outside, and they will make their players know this rule... and this isn´t a good point at all.

This is more about establishing a common ground language for rarity, an alphabet of building blocks that GMs can then use to write the opus of their homebrew world and then quickly and easily explain it to new players, with built in mechanics so they can understand what each term means in your world as long as they have learned to play PF2 in general.

One GM's Rare is a reward. Another GM's rare is a carrot on a stick. Another GM's Rare is banned. And yet another GM's is "I can't be bothered to actually look at this".

I'm sorry I just can't see this being as helpful as you think it will be. During the playtest sure, when we're not really supposed to change the rules and what not. But after a year or two when the home games start or even when they just don't care/put the work in, I can easily see different tables viewing rarity as anything from "This helps build the setting" to "This is some level of Banned".

And this is a bit of a stretch of a metaphor Mark but since you did bring it up; Alphabet is fine and all, but how does that help when every table has their own slang?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I question how willing players are going to give up their now uncommon to rare stuff because of a tag.

No really, if you couldn't get a player to stop combing over for the perfect build or stop players from picking up the standard breastplate and Falchion because it doesn't fit the setting; I don't see this fixing it. Heck I see more arguments being possible now.

Also in before Wands are Uncommon to Rare.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Igwilly wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:

This seems a bit intrusive and a bit more unnecessary. Not as intrusive and unnecessary as forcing everybody to play in Golarion or spend hours separating it from the core rules like picking unwanted raisins from a chocolate chip cookie, but I digress.

It seems to me that rarity as relates to setting is something the GM can decide on his own, and for other uses, was perfectly serviced by a mention in a stat block.

Do we really need to service the pedantic and unsophisticated on such an intimate level? I remember when these games challenged you to be resourceful, creative, and to learn a little something along the way.

You know what doesn't challenge you to be resourceful? Being able to acquire every magic item at the Quick-e-Mart.

"What do you mean, I cannot just buy a Ring of Three Wishes here? This store sells all sorts of magic items! Even the strongest Bag of Holding or something..."

"Well, you will have to work more to get the ultimate Reality Warper power for 3 uses."

Let me clarify. RAW, the settlement stat blocks place an incredibly severe limit on what you can buy. Literally a handful of different items depending on where you are. That's so intrusive that, in my experience, people don't use it, and just make it anything goes because approving every individual purpose is far too much work for the GM.

I speak of this as someone that knows they exist and as an experienced Gm.

But have you heard of apps/sites/programs that will auto roll you items to pick from for the settlements? I found one after a google search quite easily.

I will concede this is a point towards new players who haven't thought to look it up. Or even some players that don't play online as much as I do(I play a LOT of online so I tend to be very willing to just google search anything that makes things run smoother on me)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Here's an example: I'll pick something I don't think anyone would name on their list of "most powerful spells." Suppose that all magic that allows understanding languages is rare in your setting. This is not true in PF2, but let's say it is in your setting....

I love that example. I did exactly this in my very last 3.5 D&D campaign (before converting to Pathfinder). I removed Common (humans, half elves, and half orcs learned human automatically), and made Comprehend Languages, and Tongues Rare.

NPCs replaced 'common' with another appropriate language, which was almost never human unless they were actually human. PCs could replace common with any language, but I required everyone in the party share at least one language.

Ironically the result was that the party suddenly cared a lot more about trying to communicate with their enemies. There was no longer this assumption that everything speaks your tongue, and therefore is just willfully ignoring your attempts at diplomacy.

Question though, did they pick up "Comprehend Languages" more as a spell/effect or did they put points into Linguistics if that was still an option?

This is slightly off topic but I've wondered how a game like that would work.

The point I was trying to make I can easily see people getting disappointed when getting something Uncommon or Rare that's actually not that good but the GM goes "But it's RARE, you should be happy" while giving the others far better or useful things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

Uncommon and rare spells are not intended to be a power boost, no. There's not going to be like a "Logan's Awesomer Fireball" rare 3rd level fire spell that does twice as much damage as regular fireball. Common effects are powerful and efficient at what they do. Now, of course, whatever is uncommon in your game, even if you chose it by random dice rolling as an exercise when creating a new campaign setting (hmm, interesting creative exercise, might have to try that), the mere fact that something is harder to get makes it more meaningful in that setting, and the case could be made that it makes it more powerful because not everyone could get it, pretty much regardless of what the option is.

Here's an example: I'll pick something I don't think anyone would name on their list of "most powerful spells." Suppose that all magic that allows understanding languages is rare in your setting. This is not true in PF2, but let's say it is in your setting. Suddenly effects involving gaining languages or communicating relatively seem "more powerful" than they did before. But this happened as a natural result of the rarity, not because we picked something that people would have listed as more powerful otherwise.

And yet if Summon Creature 9 is actually a Rare spell, that's a power boost compared to Summon Creature 8 or lower that's stuck in Uncommon to Common. As an example that is. With the whole Actions and casting at higher spell levels, I do believe most "Level" spells are going to die out.

I don't expect every rare spell to be a power boost, though I do fully expect some spells that people have issues with(Anything that allows for Scry and Fry as an example) to be put into Rare by default. And if I'm rewarded a less than stellar Rare spell, well I feel my effort was wasted if said spell is never useful.

Say in your example I do reward someone with Comprehend Language. There, that's a big increase to their social powers... but I didn't change anything about how Linguistics skill works in my setting. 1-2 members of the party can cover from the lack of it and to the person I gave the spell to, that suddenly feels like "Thanks for playing" reward. Especially if the other spell caster got say "Control Weather". Okay that might be a VERY unfair comparison but if the other spell caster got something that's far more useful, then I'd be maybe a little peeved.

Simply getting a Rare thing as a reward isn't that nice if said thing ends up collecting dust. Spells, Feats, Magic items, etc. I'm not saying it has to be battle ending or "WOW this is so cool" but if the GM doesn't take steps to allow that reward to shine well, what was the point in giving it to the player in the first place?


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, CR is not all encompassing. A level 20 wizard and a level 20 core rogue have the same CR in PF1. So there's no reason to expect there won't be a range of power levels in multiple dimensions within a given CR.

They're supposed to be, but one can argue with a bad spell list the wizard is CR 20 maybe 21, while someone leaning over to the "God Wizard" side of thinking can probably ratchet that up to stupid levels.

Still the CR mention was more to point out "Hey how strong are the Rare spells going to be". As I said there's a difference between Rare(Not here) and Rare(We limited this because it's so strong).

As an example, I can see Greater Teleport being assigned to Rare in the core rules. I can see Instant Summons, Greater being in there. Time Stop too and I can probably go on for days about what could Rare. Heck even Blood Magic. But against such big spells, what other... less effective spells could be assigned to Rare just because "Well no one practices them".

In my experience, Barbed Chains would be rare. Because no one has that spell, no one knows that spell, and no one uses that spell.

So yeah, I don't actually expect Rare spells effecting CR or things like that. But I do believe assigning them as "Rare" will have an effect on some players and GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Wizard has 2-3 Rare spells.

What's his CR now?

The same. Rarity doesn't make something mechanically superior. Just rarer.

Rarer things that PCs go actively looking to acquire are probably mechanically good, but it sounds like rarity is irrelevant in terms of how powerful things are designed to be.

"You mean to tell me that a Rare spell I get at the end of a dungeon slog isn't going to be better than something I can pick up for a few gold from the local wise man?" - Irate player.

Why yes there is a difference between Rare because reasons(This Ice Spell is rare because it's the middle of the desert) and Rare because good(Hello Time Stop).

But forgive me if I don't expect some pretty clear power spells being locked into Rare. And since base game gives them a rarity and difficulty of getting, much like gear, I see no reason to not expect what spells a creature has fully effecting their CR now. Or whatever they go with(It's just levels now right?).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wizard has 2-3 Rare spells.

What's his CR now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
gwynfrid wrote:
This is one of those ideas that are unexciting at first glance, and, on second thought, seem so obviously necessary that the question becomes, why didn't we think of that ages ago? Which is another way of saying it's genius in its simplicity.

Personally I feel a decent number of us did something of varying degrees like this before, which is what puzzles me to see it actually formlized. Did this really need to be written down? I guess it did but eh, just weird to see.

A lot of the systems coming down the pipes are things I can't easily ignore or have to work hard to fix for my games. This? Meh. I don't see it having an impact on games I run.

You're saying this as an experienced GM. There's also a decent number of beginner GMs that don't have the time or expertise to do this organically. Even for me as a fairly seasoned GM, I find this mechanic very convenient as a shortcut for party creation, then leveling. Instead of listing a whole bunch of books that are accepted / banned in my game, I can just say, for example: You get unlimited access to Common options, and up to 2 Uncommon ones provided your backstory justifies them in some way; more will become available during the course of the campaign. This saves me quite a bit of work (and debate time, too, with certain types of players).

Most importantly, it's forward-looking: It covers not only the present books, but the ones that will be published during the course of the game.

I'm experienced yes but I wouldn't call myself an expert or smart when it comes to things. I goof on any number of things but this seems like something that didn't need to be codified. At worst, it's a way of saying "I might let you get this if you're good" from the DM being actually written into the rules.

Take that party creation a step further. I rule, as a group, 1 Uncommon race or Class. Who gets its? Who dislikes the fact they didn't get it? And you will STILL have those certain players arguing with you, because we have them now. I don't see putting an extra hurdle stop them. I can see this stopping some characters or ideas dead in their tracks or making them a harder sell now(Hey can I have this? "I don't know it's Rare and Rare tier has busted stuff so no")

And about moving forward; If I know half the stuff in a book is going to be Uncommon or Rare, I'll not pick it up. That stuff is borderline restricted from the word go now.

For every beginner DM, I can see Bad players or DMs either not caring about this or using it to impede builds they just don't like. This however is something we can only see after it happens so we can probably just drop that line of thought though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
This will also reduce the tendency to pour over 100 player companions to craft the perfect character. There's something wrong when the only serious reason your players can't take a CR 30 creature is its regeneration which they wouldn't normally have a way to overcome.
Err, how does this stop people from pouring over all the books to make a perfect character? Other than GM fiat now having an explicit in book ruling now?
My assumption is that a high percentage of Campaign Setting and Player Companion options would be non-common.

This doesn't stop those that would pour over all the options to build a perfect character though.

To me this is just more wording of "DM gets final say on stuff" which is how it should actually be. So that problem player that really wants to play something off the wall and possibly busted, you now have something else in the book to point at and say "No".

Won't stop them from complaining though.

As for myself, well it might effect what odd builds I can do but I will withhold judgement on that till after I see what's is limited.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Also I would hope that players talk to you about anything they buy and don't just put it on their sheet because they just expect to have it.

At the risk of explaining my last post a little too well... checking everything they put on their sheets is a lot of work, so something that can designate more things as needing permission, while still allowing me to let them just take fireball and magic missile, is really good for me.

I'll probably let them take one uncommon/rare/unique option or so at character creation based on their character's backstory. I sort of want the PCs to feel special, and giving them things most people don't have access to is a way to do that.

Checking everything is a pain yes but I prefer to see what my players are building/learning/getting as opposed to just guessing at what they are doing. Doing so lets me point out other options that might help them or the team out better rather than having them mess up and be useless or break the difficulty for the other people. This also lets me think of more unique or custom items than just tossing them a "better" weapon.

I mean if my cleric said they wanted to pick up a spell, now or Common in PF2, that was a mind effecting spell; well I would suggest against it after they came to me. Most undead(AP is undead heavy) are immune to that so that's a dead pick. But if I just nodded and said "Sure you can it's common" that makes it fine and dandy... till the zombies come in and that's now known as a dead spell.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
This will also reduce the tendency to pour over 100 player companions to craft the perfect character. There's something wrong when the only serious reason your players can't take a CR 30 creature is its regeneration which they wouldn't normally have a way to overcome.

Err, how does this stop people from pouring over all the books to make a perfect character? Other than GM fiat now having an explicit in book ruling now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gwynfrid wrote:
This is one of those ideas that are unexciting at first glance, and, on second thought, seem so obviously necessary that the question becomes, why didn't we think of that ages ago? Which is another way of saying it's genius in its simplicity.

Personally I feel a decent number of us did something of varying degrees like this before, which is what puzzles me to see it actually formlized. Did this really need to be written down? I guess it did but eh, just weird to see.

A lot of the systems coming down the pipes are things I can't easily ignore or have to work hard to fix for my games. This? Meh. I don't see it having an impact on games I run.

Staffan Johansson wrote:


Remember that items also have a level, which effectively creates a two-dimensional rarity system. A +2 spear might be something like a level 9 item, which might mean it's only available in small cities or larger communities (if it's not clear, I'm speculating wildly here). But it's still a common item, so it shouldn't be that hard to get a hold of for the right person. But a +2 katana would be uncommon, so it's not enough to get to a small city - you must also find someone there who trades with Tian Xia or otherwise has the right connections.

Yes because I want to abandon the party and adventure to go all the way to a trading city just to upgrade one thing and go all the way back to the group.... who has already solved the problem and gotten their far easier to use gear. I mean Sword +2 is Common why doesn't everyone just use Swords?

Though as a side note, I keep seeing Katanas mentioned everywhere. Why? Were they that wide spread in use that people want to make sure they can keep using them? As for your example, err..., that's what I do now? Either find a merchant or find a blacksmith who is willing to rent you a forge and make it yourself.


Shinigami02 wrote:
Even in PF1e it was technically possible to upgrade a weapon to Masterwork and then enchant it... if you had a helpful Wizard/Sorc with the Masterwork Transformation spell (or at least a scroll) and crafting feats, and a few days/weeks/years of downtime. Most games don't have all that IME though.

Crafting rules need a rework, my own group just hand waves stuff depending on how much time we have. It sounds odd yes but in 1 week my friend upgraded his sword twice I think and during the same time I made a full fledged Junk Golem. Mind you I did have a lot of salvage to work with


Cantriped wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
You can actually reforge your weapon at a higher quality too.
Yay, we can even keep our 'grandfather's axe' forever...

I know this makes a friend of mine happy.


Justin Franklin wrote:
I would think you would do it by region and then have a smaller list that was country or even city specific. Also if we are doing it by tag you could say in Osirian items tagged as Egyptian are common.

Possible but again at the same time, I don't want to look at an item and see a huge is of "Where it can be found" text glaring back at me.

I don't know maybe it's the laid back style I tend to do, the "handle it as it comes up and mark it down" rules/issues, or the fact my players come to me with questions about "Can I do/get X" which we'd talk it out. I also like giving rewards based around the character rather than "Here's your +3 new sword" well now "Here's your Rarity X reward".

At the end of the day though, this doesn't effect my table so all I can do is just shrug and wait for Monday. Though maybe just slap on a "This Setting may be changed due to DM" label near the front of books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:


Because it gives you a huge bunch of default assumptions that you don't need to work out as a GM, and then you can focus on a few ad hoc labels of your own if you feel fancy.

There is going to be a thousand spells or more soon after the first few books. Having 500 that are common, 300 that are uncommon, and 200 that are rare, will save me to manually tag ONE THOUSAND spells. That's a big plus.

This.

My group did this in PF1. It is a slog. We eventually tried to do it based on books with allowances based on region, religion, etc, but then we felt it really wasn't as precise as we wanted, as some books had a few things that seemed more common but mostly things that seemed rare.

I question just what you did in PF1. Label all the spells and items? I'd like more info.

Though I feel if you're going to do that for every region in PF2 it's going to a development slog heck it's going to be a GM one too. I'd rather not have to double check to see a thing's rarity in Ustalav vs Osirion. In my head i just see that as adding way to many labels to items and spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:
One of the recent changes in my campaign setting is that resurrection spells stopped working, except in a few unique cases. Based on this blog entry, it looks like I can tag any rituals that raise the dead as a rare option and have the players easily understand what that means. That will be useful for introducing new players to my game.

I don't know what the difference is of "This is rare - Says the DM" and "This is Rare - says a Tag supplied by the DM".

Because it gives you a huge bunch of default assumptions that you don't need to work out as a GM, and then you can focus on a few ad hoc labels of your own if you feel fancy.

There is going to be a thousand spells or more soon after the first few books. Having 500 that are common, 300 that are uncommon, and 200 that are rare, will save me to manually tag ONE THOUSAND spells. That's a big plus.

I do believe you missed the quote you wanted which was "is this more or less work for the GM". Though I question why you would need to tag all the spells.

No my qoute was more about "As a DM I have made these spells Rare for X reasons" vs "As a DM I put the Rare tag here". I feel this actually can lead to some DM/GMs being lazy as to WHY some things are rare in their setting, they just ARE now. Because we can just easily slap a tag to it.

Though it's weird, I've seen mixed results of people slapping labels to things in PF1 but suddenly this is a good thing?

Whatever. Again I might have a doubt or two about it but I don't think it's a bad thing. I just think it's weird to try and Formalize this aspect of the game.


Darkorin wrote:

Hey Mark, could we get some info on how you see the rarity system work with Spontaneous casters and bloodline?

Will you create Uncommon Bloodlines? Rare Bloodlines?

Can Bloodline contain uncommon or rarer spells?

That's actually a good question for any class that uses spells and or items.

Heck are some classes/Archetypes going to be slapped with Uncommon to Rare now? Feats too?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

What does rare mean? More expensive? Low chance of finding it in a shop? No chance of acquiring without grand adventure? Players can take it, but no NPCs will have it?

Words with in-game definitions help to clearly communicate your campaign assumptions.

Attaching the words is a double edged sword. How rare is a +2 sword going to be? Will my Spear Cleric be damned to uselessness because anything better than a short spear is Rare now?

I also don't think this will stop "Can I have....but!" from players.

mogmismo wrote:

Because the GM can say, "Talk to me about anything marked uncommon", or "You've just arrived in a city of ____ size, you can buy anything that costs less than X gold that is common, and there are these few uncommon items." It preempts players assuming they can purchase anything in a magic shop, which is a way I've seen some groups play.

Also, I suspect it'll work very nicely in PFS. I'm hoping for a system where you can buy anything common, and Fame helps you get into uncommon items. Rare items are for Chronicle sheets alone!

Yes because I want PFS for my home game. Also I would hope that players talk to you about anything they buy and don't just put it on their sheet because they just expect to have it.

Charlie Brooks wrote:

I think the biggest benefit is the fact that the rulebook spells out base assumptions better. That makes it easier for everybody to understand what the rules think the setting is like and how a specific campaign might differ from it.

For example, under this system we now know that goblins are common, since they're a core race. WHile that was sort of an assumption in 1st edition, it was never really explicitly stated. So saying, "goblins are rare in this campaign" doesn't necessarily give everybody the same perspective. Under this system, switching goblins from common to uncommon gives everybody a rough assumption as to what that means in comparison with the baseline Pathfinder setting. (It also happens to be an easy "out" spelled out in the rules for people who don't like the idea of goblin PCs.)

This isn't a huge, earth-shattering change, but I think it's a way to make communication clearer and simpler, which should help to make sure everybody has the same assumptions about a setting and a campaign.

Noooooooope not seeing a difference between;

DM - This is rare in my setting. Here's why.
DM - This is rare in my setting because I wrote a tag next to it, see this is what core rule book has to say about Rare, you should read it.

If a player is going to ignore what the DM said, I don't think they are going to listen to a little tag written there by said DM.

----

Let me be clear, I don't think this is a BAD thing. At the very least it will stop players from going to "All you can Carry Magic Shop open 24 hours"(Cough, even though most towns list d4-8 magic items they actually DO have).

I'm just a bit puzzled at it. I don't think it hurts anything other than gear and loot options but that's dependent on DM and players so I can only make guesses as to how that will turn out. But at the same time I don't think it actually adds as much as people seem to think.

I mean this just seems to be the "Gun rarity" rule across EVERYTHING now.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Brooks wrote:
One of the recent changes in my campaign setting is that resurrection spells stopped working, except in a few unique cases. Based on this blog entry, it looks like I can tag any rituals that raise the dead as a rare option and have the players easily understand what that means. That will be useful for introducing new players to my game.

I don't know what the difference is of "This is rare - Says the DM" and "This is Rare - says a Tag supplied by the DM".


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know if this is more or less work than just reading "This is what allowed" by the DM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
I actually exchanged a fair number of PMs with the guy who created the Tier system on Brilliant Gameologists. He claims he created the system as an aide for GMs to better manage their campaigns by knowing which Classes were tougher to GM aka most likely to break the campaign.

That might have been his intent.

It's debatable as to what people actually use it for now these days.


Easier Construct rules.

Why yes I know they are there to stop people from just crafting an army(Being Evil and using Raise dead is far easier, and Summoning even easier/less prone to cause partying infighting), but really I shouldn't have to cross reference a couple books/pdfs/sites for crafting/upgrading the thing.

I just want to have 1 Golem or Construct buddy that I upgrade over the course of the game. And I want to do that without going Summoner and just flavoring/RPing my Eidolon as one


ErichAD wrote:
The crane wing criticism always struck me as funny. It's easily overcome by ranged attacks, grappling, fog/darkness/stealth, difficult terrain, other ways of denying dexterity, ignoring the cranewinger and attacking the rest of the party, and so on. Are PFS combats toe to toe brawls?

My own experience, PFS tends to be "For themselves". Yes if you go for someone else, you make it harder for the team to maybe succeed. But the mentality of "Not my character, not my problem" can't be something that is a rare instance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Frankly, hunting is mostly not a very impressive looking activity.
Another reason why positioning the Ranger as a "Hunter" is so irksome. I checked with PFS Analytics and "hunting" isn't even a thing in PFS.

You got a link to that?

I don't doubt you but my own google search hasn't shown any actual PFS data site. Or if it does it's for something not Pathfinder Society(Professional Freight Solutions was a fun read)

Is the data buried somewhere on Paizo or in the PFS sections?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
graystone wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
graystone wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
the data
I have to say, my experience doesn't match the data.

Now there's a shocker.... xD

I'm sorry I don't worship at the altar of PFS perfection: I didn't drink the kool-aid. But good to see you bring your usual flare to the discussion... :P
Except that mark isn't talking about PFS, he's talking about how the data says Crane Wing doesn't work the way you think it does, and it has nothing to do with PFS... :P

Our tables are able to transmit data back to Paizo?

Is that why my WiFi usage has been so weird?


vhok wrote:
i don't see the issue? is it a splash weapon? yes it is. what more is there to discuss?

Because when I looked it up the only thing I could find was a discussion about Pellet Grenades


Need to sit down with my DM about this but want to get some thoughts here.

Alchemists get Throw Anything for free but also modifiy it with; "An alchemist adds his Intelligence modifier to damage done with splash weapons, including the splash damage if any."

I'm playing in Iron Gods. So we get tech grenades. "A grenade is a small, cylindrical device that is designed to be thrown as a splash weapon"

So um, do I get to add my INT to the damage?

1 to 50 of 921 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>