Are rituals supposed to be purely rewards from the GM?

Are rituals supposed to be purely rewards from the GM? It does not seem like there is a way for players to manually access them on their own, and they do not even interact with the wealth-by-level tables in any way. Did I miss something here?

Hmmm rituals have levels, they interact with wealth by level tables in the same way that new spells do.

They are usually services players can try and look for, try to be trained in or given as a reward yes.

Uncommon is a rarity that is meant to be relatively frequently handed out in the duration of a campaign but not something that a player can outright assume they have access to without asking the GM first.

HOWWWWEEEEEVVVER, rituals along with any other uncommon player facing element are things that can be opened up to players through feats, features and even other items.
But it will take time for more options to come out that allow specific access to the uncommon elements that someone may want right now :) (and we will likely have more uncommon elements that are unavailable for guaranteed build availability than those that are not)

Disclaimer: as a GM I love that this is a system default assumption and believe it is healthy for the game in play. So I may not paint it in a light those who do not like it will appreciate :)

Yeah, Rituals are explicitly Spells and interact with the game as such. They're all Uncommon (or rarer) Spells, which makes getting them fairly fiat heavy, but no more so than other Uncommon spells.

Deffo a talk to your GM thing right now. Which I'm glad for. Every party being able to shrug off death with rituals is a default assumption that takes away from the world in my opinion.

I think the general answer to your question is: Yes. But I disagree with the framing of the question, as I would rather say that the rituals are devices and goals that need to be worked towards and earned by the player characters. The end result still stays the same though.

The only trouble with rituals as things stand is that they are all listed as "uncommon" and there is no described mechanism for gaining access.

Presumably, you would have to either
a) locate a friendly NPC who knows the ritual or has it in some book, and convince him to let you learn it, or
b) steal it from somebody who has it in some book, or
c) find a ritual in an ancient tome as part of a loot haul.

So it's all by DM caveat. Unless or until we gain further insight in a future supplement.

Often even casting a ritual is going to depend on details of the fiction. Most rituals require secondary casters. In some cases like the basic version of Resurrection you can probably depend on other party members, but at high levels you will need to involve NPCs who must be of a sufficiently high level. Some rituals like Atone and Planar Ally require all casters to share a religion and in the case of Atone the secondary caster must be the character seeking absolution. The Cleric of Pharasma cannot Atone the Champion of Torag and the Champion cannot Atone himself. I really like rituals and how they require you to interact with the setting to achieve what are some pretty powerful effects.

Hmmm rituals have levels, they interact with wealth by level tables in the same way that new spells do.

I'm very happy about this bit, because opening them up for sale makes them fit my setting really well.

The point of 'uncommon' isn't to prevent players from building the characters that they want to play. It is to prevent players from building a character that is going to disrupt the story and theme that the players are trying to create.

If I want to play a gritty story where permadeath is a harsh reality that influences the decisions made - having easy access to the Resurrect ritual would break that.

If we are building a story about being traders going through harsh wildernesses, the Teleport really should be restricted.

On the other hand...

If we are building a story about being traders going through harsh wildernesses, having easy access to Resurrect ritual would be fine. No reason for the GM to make it hard to find someone in every small village who knows the ritual.

All i know is that you can use rituals without spellcasting, so i can't wait to have a rogue who specializes in them. really hope I can get my hands on them in my game.

The only trouble with rituals as things stand is that they are all listed as "uncommon" and there is no described mechanism for gaining access.

So it's all by DM caveat. Unless or until we gain further insight in a future supplement.

I believe the whole point is that the GM does not need to actively rule out uncommon elements.

He or she only needs to not say yes.

Creating feats that grant access to uncommon elements defeat the whole purpose of putting the decision in the GM:s hands. Expectating Paizo to create them makes me question whether you fully understand the design idea of having rarity in PF2.

It's not meant to be viewed as a roadblock or optimization challenge the player eventually works around. It's meant to empower the GM at the expense of player entitlement.

I think it is great idea!

Or in short, any feat that says "you get access to one ritual of your choice" will hopefully be uncommon itself! ;-)

i believe it actually said somewhere that uncommon things are generally given by classes or feats, hence why all focus spells are uncommon.

Some elements of the game have a rarity to denote how often they’re encountered in the game world. Rarity primarily applies to equipment and magic items, but spells, feats, and other rules elements also have a rarity. If no rarity appears in the traits of an item, spell, or other game element, it is of common rarity. Uncommon items are available only to those who have special training, grew up in a certain culture, or come from a particular part of the world. Rare items are almost impossible to find and are usually given out only by the GM, while unique ones are literally one-of-a-kind in the game. The GM might alter the way rarity works or change the rarity of individual items to suit the story they want to tell.

decided to put it here, so I could see an Acolyte background having access to the ressurection ritual or the planar ally ritual, etc.

I hope we will get Common rituals down the line. Else the great Magic for everyone idea will have lost a lot of its impact.

I also hope Uncommon options will mostly appear in books for GMs. Putting them in books for players would feel like twisting the knife.

There's basically two kinds of uncommon out there.

Uncommon: only a particular crowd uses this. Only the aberrant bloodline uses Tentacular Limbs. Only Tien people use katanas. There's a mechanical way to get access.

Uncommon: you can't just take this spell, it's one of those spells that's been complained about for 20 years as trivializing a particular kind of plots. So now the setup is: ask your GM. The Uncommon tag is a hint to the GM to "think about the consequences before you allow this", and to players to "don't just assume this available".

I think the rituals right now all fall in the second category, but it's because the CRB contains very few new spells, and the new stuff that's there is all for bloodlines/domains etc.; there's very little new stuff in the spells that are for "everyone".

There totally could be common rituals, but there was only so much stuff they could cram into the CRB.

Are rituals supposed to be purely rewards from the GM? It does not seem like there is a way for players to manually access them on their own, and they do not even interact with the wealth-by-level tables in any way. Did I miss something here?

Nope, they are not. They can be, but I have characters where I’ll ask the GM to start out with a ritual.

I am worried that many GMs will not feel comfortable allowing anything Uncommon since "if the devs were okay with this, it would be Common."

This kind of mindset has precedent in PF1 with GMs not allowing anything 3pp or coming from Player Companions or using the PFS restrictions.

Because using a blanket restriction is far easier than doing a case-by-case analysis.

I am worried that many GMs will not feel comfortable allowing anything Uncommon since "if the devs were okay with this, it would be Common."

This kind of mindset has precedent in PF1 with GMs not allowing anything 3pp or coming from Player Companions or using the PFS restrictions.

Because using a blanket restriction is far easier than doing a case-by-case analysis.

Which is a good thing for someone who doesn't have the system mastery to make those decisions. That way over time they gain confidence and trust.

The number of times I have seen an experienced gronard convince a naive or less confident GM to allow their s!*$ makes me sick.

Even had conversations with friends who laughed about it "well he shouldn't have allowed the thing I asked for if he didn't want me to break the game".

I want more GMs to get past negative early experiences than not and this is a good way to make that more likely imo.

My take: Yes, Rituals are things PCs gain as rewards from play. But as with ALL rules options, a GM can ALWAYS make them Common for their game.

I seeded several different rituals as rewards on scrolls or in books or even opportunities to learn them from NPCs in the Age of Ashes Adventure Path, for example.

If the devs aren't okay with a rule option... it doesn't go into print. The idea that we would publish things we don't think are good for the game and then "protect" players from them by making those options Uncommon or Rare is kinda ... strange to me, is I guess how I'll pout it.

... strange to me, is I guess how I'll pout it.

Oh no we made the T-Rex pout!

If the devs aren't okay with a rule option... it doesn't go into print. The idea that we would publish things we don't think are good for the game and then "protect" players from them by making those options Uncommon or Rare is kinda ... strange to me, is I guess how I'll pout it.

It may seem strange to you, but it's kind of hard to not read the list of uncommon/rare spells as things that have single handedly solved/ruined encounters or even entire adventures that you need to know about or plan around in first edition. The list of uncommon spells is full of divination and enchantment that can uncover a secret plot very easily if used correctly. Add in some illusion and extradimensional space spells that can completely circumvent entire fights. Same with teleportation/planar travel. All things that experienced GMs can be/have been frustrated with in the past. Meanwhile spells with very little narrative power, or ability to interrupt the game seldom appear. Transmutation and evocation are all but absent, except for level 10 spells which are all uncommon, and shadow blast, the lone evocation spell I've noticed.

I mean, if you asked me to make a list of spells that a beginner GM might want to ban, because they can be problematic to running an adventure, especially a written adventure, it would probably look a lot like the uncommon list, which is probably what makes people a little incredulous when they hear a comment like this.

I mean, if you asked me to make a list of spells that a beginner GM might want to ban, because they can be problematic to running an adventure, especially a written adventure, it would probably look a lot like the uncommon list, which is probably what makes people a little incredulous when they hear a comment like this.

Keep in mind the Uncommon list is not a ban list, it is a "you might have to put in a little effort to acquire this" list.

From what I have heard from Paizo, it seems clear that their intent is that any player who wants an Uncommon option should be able to find an avenue to it, and if a GM doesn't want that to be the case then they should in fact house rule it to Rare instead of Uncommon.

As an example of how Paizo probably intends rarity to be used, I'd point out that, according to Archives of Nethys, every single item added in the Fall of Plaguestone is Uncommon rarity or rarer. I don't have the adventure myself, but I'm pretty sure that the players are intended to find or otherwise have access to most or all of those items at some point, so treating it like a ban list would probably be a big mistake.

James Jacobs wrote:

... strange to me, is I guess how I'll pout it.

Oh no we made the T-Rex pout!

I guess he will just have to go hang out in his dinosaur fort until he feels better.

NielsenE wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

... strange to me, is I guess how I'll pout it.

Oh no we made the T-Rex pout!

I guess he will just have to go hang out in his dinosaur fort until he feels better.

I'm sure the help hounds will see to that.

Regarding Rituals and gaining access to uncommon:
I'll be sure to seed Infernal and abyssal Pact rituals early on. Those devils and demons sure want you to have easy access to them.

I'll be sure to seed Infernal and abyssal Pact rituals early on. Those devils and demons sure want you to have easy access to them.

Aren't they restricted to Demons and Devils for the primary caster? I can definitely see an Imp or Quasit leading their cult in a ritual to summon a more powerful fiend, but there doesn't seem to be a ritual option below Planar Ally for this sort of thing. Planar Binding lets you sign away your soul via a contract, but its 6th level.

Franz Lunzer wrote:

I'll be sure to seed Infernal and abyssal Pact rituals early on. Those devils and demons sure want you to have easy access to them.

Aren't they restricted to Demons and Devils for the primary caster? ...

Darn. I didn't see that line up there.

As an example of how Paizo probably intends rarity to be used, I'd point out that, according to Archives of Nethys, every single item added in the Fall of Plaguestone is Uncommon rarity or rarer. I don't have the adventure myself, but I'm pretty sure that the players are intended to find or otherwise have access to most or all of those items at some point, so treating it like a ban list would probably be a big mistake.

Of course they were - Paizo has stated several times the rarity system was to keep players from using any published sourcebook as a shopping cart for new character creation.

This entire system is kind of a nifty trick - it allows players to continue to craft items, and buy/sell magic without turning the entire system into a 'well if the GM won't put it into a loot table I'll craft the 'item of campaign ending' I want.

It's kind of a nice balance between very old school (new spells are *FOUND* only - NO CRAFTING) - and the 3.x days (craft anything, take any spell).

Take a step back for a moment - and also note that they can now add items/spells into adventures that 100% would break the game if they were 'common' options. We should (once they start to really explore this space) get some really cool and unique items/spells that otherwise would never see print because if people complain they can point to the rarity system and say 'your mileage may vary if you go off on your own'.

It's rather a clever hack onto the entire rules system that quite frankly - is brilliant.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Hmmm rituals have levels, they interact with wealth by level tables in the same way that new spells do.

I'm very happy about this bit, because opening them up for sale makes them fit my setting really well.

That's right! For just five easy payments of $19.95 you too can have access to a quick and easy method of hand-crafting your very own customized undead slaves! Be the envy of your friends and family when they see you reanimate the corpses of your former friends and family, forcing them to do your bidding. Tired of household drudgery? A thing of the past! Feeling unsafe while out and about town, or at your workplace? Well worry no more! Not with Thanatastic! Incorporated's brand-new line of undead summoning rituals.

Some restrictions apply. Ritual materials sold separately. These rituals are neither quick nor easy and extreme care is recommended in performing them. Manufactured undead may be less cooperative than advertised, and have been known to devour their summoners without provocation. Thanatastic! Incorporated accepts no responsibility for any physical, mental, or spiritual damages incurred by the use of these rituals nor any of the undead beings created thereby. Some side-effects may include, but are not limited solely to, anxiety, dysphoria, irrational hatred of the living, itchiness in the hands, eyes, or bones, corruption of one's eternal soul, cessation of autonomic function, and spontaneous necromantic revitalization.

Take a step back for a moment - and also note that they can now add items/spells into adventures that 100% would break the game if they were 'common' options. We should (once they start to really explore this space) get some really cool and unique items/spells that otherwise would never see print because if people complain they can point to the rarity system and say 'your mileage may vary if you go off on your own'.

I do not buy this logic. If something breaks the game at the level it is printed at, then it should simply be made at a higher level.

Ckorik wrote:

Take a step back for a moment - and also note that they can now add items/spells into adventures that 100% would break the game if they were 'common' options. We should (once they start to really explore this space) get some really cool and unique items/spells that otherwise would never see print because if people complain they can point to the rarity system and say 'your mileage may vary if you go off on your own'.

I do not buy this logic. If something breaks the game at the level it is printed at, then it should simply be made at a higher level.

Why?

Why can't the official material have a story about training at the top of the mountain with an ancient master - giving access to a rare feat that breaks the game in other campaigns - but doesn't for *this story* because it's designed around.

That's practically a staple of literature - go find the ancient spell/master/trainer/sword whatever that doesn't exist anywhere else - rarity lets them use these things without everyone assuming 'blood money' is a balanced level 1 spell that any mage can have access to because it was published.

I mean, there's no reason why an adventure can't just give out a higher level item, though?

It can also be a rare item, if it alters the game in ways that rare items can alter the game, but the way rare items alter the game is supposed to be 'potentially changes the assumptions of adventure design', not 'is far more powerful than other items of its level'.

It's not like a character is only allowed to use items of their level or below, that's not a restriction that needs to be adhered to.

The folks at Paizo have specifically said they aren't making Rarity able to change the power level of abilities. It still lets them do some neat stuff, though, and can be very powerful in the right context.

The folks at Paizo have specifically said they aren't making Rarity able to change the power level of abilities. It still lets them do some neat stuff, though, and can be very powerful in the right context.

I've found that treating the folks at Paizo as being able to change their minds over things, better than relying on statements made as rock solid promises. For the record they said that over PF1 as well - and despite that fact several items, and feats had to be changed due to the human inability to forsee all possible futures.

I personally am hopeful that this new system lets them breath when designing stuff now - instead of always wondering how it will break the game and become a 'purple, must have' on some character build guide.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The folks at Paizo have specifically said they aren't making Rarity able to change the power level of abilities. It still lets them do some neat stuff, though, and can be very powerful in the right context.

I've found that treating the folks at Paizo as being able to change their minds over things, better than relying on statements made as rock solid promises. For the record they said that over PF1 as well - and despite that fact several items, and feats had to be changed due to the human inability to forsee all possible futures.

Is there a word missing here or something?

Ckorik wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The folks at Paizo have specifically said they aren't making Rarity able to change the power level of abilities. It still lets them do some neat stuff, though, and can be very powerful in the right context.

I've found that treating the folks at Paizo as being able to change their minds over things, better than relying on statements made as rock solid promises. For the record they said that over PF1 as well - and despite that fact several items, and feats had to be changed due to the human inability to forsee all possible futures.

Is there a word missing here or something?

No.

Rysky wrote:

Ckorik wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The folks at Paizo have specifically said they aren't making Rarity able to change the power level of abilities. It still lets them do some neat stuff, though, and can be very powerful in the right context.

I've found that treating the folks at Paizo as being able to change their minds over things, better than relying on statements made as rock solid promises. For the record they said that over PF1 as well - and despite that fact several items, and feats had to be changed due to the human inability to forsee all possible futures.

Is there a word missing here or something?

No.

Then what was “that” in “For the record they said that over PF1 as well”? Or was it referring to the previous sentence?

Ckorik wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Ckorik wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

The folks at Paizo have specifically said they aren't making Rarity able to change the power level of abilities. It still lets them do some neat stuff, though, and can be very powerful in the right context.

I've found that treating the folks at Paizo as being able to change their minds over things, better than relying on statements made as rock solid promises. For the record they said that over PF1 as well - and despite that fact several items, and feats had to be changed due to the human inability to forsee all possible futures.

Is there a word missing here or something?

No.

Then what was “that” in “For the record they said that over PF1 as well”? Or was it referring to the previous sentence?

"The folks at Paizo have specifically said they aren't making Rarity able to change the power level of abilities."

Jason Bulmahn - Pathfinder 1

"When we are releasing new material, we keep these relationships in mind. If we ignore them and start changing the balance in books further down the road, we end up with a great deal of conceptual drift and, depending on the area of drift, some pretty bad issues of power creep"

These two statements are not identical - but convey the same meaning conceptually.

That is what "that" referred to.

To whit - another quote by Jason shows the eggshells that the PF1 team constantly felt they had to walk around to bring new stories and content to us without breaking the game. The rarity system could be abused to that effect, it's great that they want to continue to make things as they always have - with the overall health of the game in mind - but at the same time the fact that they have a hard rule that gives them an 'out' if something is printed that becomes the new powergamer drug of choice - has to give them some kind of relief - and from this customer - I see the stress that they are under (JJ has to take sabbaticals frequently due to the vitriol - Jason almost doesn't interact with the players at all except from an 'on high' voice - these are consequences of that stress).

Does that help to explain?

Creating feats that grant access to uncommon elements defeat the whole purpose of putting the decision in the GM:s hands.

Yet that's not the case since there are ALREADY feats that unlock uncommon equipment/features. Many Ancestries have feats that make uncommon weapons available to you. All classes with Focus spells have class feats that unlock uncommon spells, unique to that subclass.

My understanding is that Uncommon rarity means that it's not available to every character/NPC, yet some will. It doesn't suggest that you specifically need a DM not to "say yes".

I would in general say Rarity is more often meant as a game element that you must work toward, not assume it's yours for the taking. uncommon and rare elements will OFTEN be the result of quests or NPC interactions, but they will also be elements introduced by certain stories.

Campaign traits from P1 are a good example of something that would be uncommon, maybe rare in P2. Even though they were often highly regarded by builds and guides didn't mean that anyone should assume they were available when not in that story.

@Ckorik, it does. I was confused since Rarity didn’t exist in 1st so was wondering what you were talking about.

Adventures, whether Paizo or 3pp, written for PF2 should have a foreword detailing which Uncommon things from other books are supposed to be available to players and which are not. So that GMs can know right away how much fiddling and rewriting they will need to do.

What I hope we will avoid is GMs using the rarity system to give things to NPCs that will forever be out of the reach of PCs. Especially if most hostile NPCs end up with Uncommon or even Rare options unavailable to PCs.

BTW what happened to all the Evil-detecting low-level Paladins in the setting ?

BTW what happened to all the Evil-detecting low-level Paladins in the setting ?

Lorewise Detect Evil was a pretty advanced ability that not every paladin even had, so its new placement matches up with that.

The Raven Black wrote:

BTW what happened to all the Evil-detecting low-level Paladins in the setting ?

Lorewise Detect Evil was a pretty advanced ability that not every paladin even had, so its new placement matches up with that.

Detect Evil was literally a lv 1 ability for default Paladins. Any Paladin that did not get it at lv 1 (or some other point) was most likely using a Paladin Archetype, of which only a little less than half replaced it.

So can you PM me where that lore is from?

But other wise that was not the question, it was not about all Paladins regardless of getting Detect Evil; It was just about the ones that did get it.

Rysky wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

BTW what happened to all the Evil-detecting low-level Paladins in the setting ?

Lorewise Detect Evil was a pretty advanced ability that not every paladin even had, so its new placement matches up with that.

Detect Evil was literally a lv 1 ability for default Paladins. Any Paladin that did not get it at lv 1 (or some other point) was most likely using a Paladin Archetype, of which only a little less than half replaced it.

So can you PM me where that lore is from?

But other wise that was not the question, it was not about all Paladins regardless of getting Detect Evil; It was just about the ones that did get it.

I said lorewise, all the novels that have Paladins have Detecting evil be something they get late as an advanced technique, it's not the first thing they pick up as a Paladin, that's usually smite.

Temperans wrote:

Rysky wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

BTW what happened to all the Evil-detecting low-level Paladins in the setting ?

Lorewise Detect Evil was a pretty advanced ability that not every paladin even had, so its new placement matches up with that.

Detect Evil was literally a lv 1 ability for default Paladins. Any Paladin that did not get it at lv 1 (or some other point) was most likely using a Paladin Archetype, of which only a little less than half replaced it.

So can you PM me where that lore is from?

But other wise that was not the question, it was not about all Paladins regardless of getting Detect Evil; It was just about the ones that did get it.

I said lorewise, all the novels that have Paladins have Detecting evil be something they get late as an advanced technique, it's not the first thing they pick up as a Paladin, that's usually smite.

I did not know that. Thank you for sharing :-)

Rysky wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Rysky wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

BTW what happened to all the Evil-detecting low-level Paladins in the setting ?

Lorewise Detect Evil was a pretty advanced ability that not every paladin even had, so its new placement matches up with that.

Detect Evil was literally a lv 1 ability for default Paladins. Any Paladin that did not get it at lv 1 (or some other point) was most likely using a Paladin Archetype, of which only a little less than half replaced it.

So can you PM me where that lore is from?

But other wise that was not the question, it was not about all Paladins regardless of getting Detect Evil; It was just about the ones that did get it.

I said lorewise, all the novels that have Paladins have Detecting evil be something they get late as an advanced technique, it's not the first thing they pick up as a Paladin, that's usually smite.

I did not know that. Thank you for sharing :-)

Np ^w^

Temperans wrote:

Rysky wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

BTW what happened to all the Evil-detecting low-level Paladins in the setting ?

Lorewise Detect Evil was a pretty advanced ability that not every paladin even had, so its new placement matches up with that.

Detect Evil was literally a lv 1 ability for default Paladins. Any Paladin that did not get it at lv 1 (or some other point) was most likely using a Paladin Archetype, of which only a little less than half replaced it.

So can you PM me where that lore is from?

But other wise that was not the question, it was not about all Paladins regardless of getting Detect Evil; It was just about the ones that did get it.

I said lorewise, all the novels that have Paladins have Detecting evil be something they get late as an advanced technique, it's not the first thing they pick up as a Paladin, that's usually smite.

That's goofy. Why would you write a novel if you don't know the basics of the class you're writing about? If a paladin has detect evil at level one, then that's what they get in the book. I detest authors (like Salvatore) who use a system to sell their work but don't even follow the most basic of mechanics in their narrative.

That's goofy. Why would you write a novel if you don't know the basics of the class you're writing about? If a paladin has detect evil at level one, then that's what they get in the book. I detest authors (like Salvatore) who use a system to sell their work but don't even follow the most basic of mechanics in their narrative.

In fairness, a lot of novel characters are multiclass characters, and few are 1st level. It's less that the authors don't know the rules and more that truly low level single classed Paladins just don't show up at all.

Or the rules in a novel are different than rules of the TTRPG. Different medium so different things work differently (characters aren’t restricted to actions and movement per round for one thing).

Or maybe they have an archetype that trades it out or switches it out.

What Deadman said as well. They’re literary characters in fiction, not statblocks to use in game.

The Tales writers maintained communication with the Paizo designers so the “rules” worked and made sense in setting.

Reading a novel where the author sticks to the game mechanics would make me more irritated than not.

And lol, I can see why salvatore didn't. It isn't why people read his books nor has he been writing for the same system since the start.