Common Ground

Friday, July 13, 2018

When it comes to using game rules to simulate a fantasy setting, one thing that's always been in the background in Pathfinder has been the idea that certain monsters, types of armor, and so on are more common in some areas than in others. For instance, Pathfinder First Edition's rules for the Knowledge skill rely on the fact that some monsters are more commonly known, though it doesn't really define which are which. Meanwhile, there are circumstances such as the spell Echean's excellent enclosure from Rival Guide where knowledge of a spell is closely guarded by its creator (in this case, an evil 20th-level wizard).

To make it easier for players and GMs to engage in worldbuilding, whether playing in Golarion or your own setting, we've created a formalized framework for the Pathfinder Playtest—using the categories common, uncommon, rare, and unique—that you can use to help determine the tone of a setting, region, or adventure. These are relative terms; while we list suggested rarities for various rules elements, they naturally vary from place to place even within the same campaign setting. For instance, in the playtest, a longsword is listed as common, and a katana is listed as uncommon, but in a game focused around Japanese fantasy (or, in Golarion, Minkai or Minkai-influenced nations in Tian Xia), a katana would be common and a longsword might be uncommon.

Common

Something is common if it's ubiquitous in its category, like any of the core races and core classes, longswords, fireball, bracers of armor, and the like. All characters can select common options without restriction.

Uncommon

Something is uncommon if it's a little rarer, but still possible to find or use if you are deeply interested in it. These options are a bit weirder, more complicated, or known to fewer people, so they haven't spread across the world as much. Many uncommon options explicitly become available to a character as they proceed along a path that teaches them about that option. For instance, all domain powers in the playtest are uncommon spells, but clerics are granted access to domain powers through their deities. Characters from a given region, ethnicity, religion, or other group in your world might gain access to uncommon options associated with it. To go back to our previous example, even in a game set in the Inner Sea region of Golarion, if your character hailed from Minkai in her background, you and the GM might decide that you should gain access to Eastern weapons instead of, or in addition to, Western ones.

Story events in your game are another way a character could gain access to uncommon options. For instance, Stephen previously mentioned in the blog on alchemical items that you would have to get the formula for drow sleep poison from the drow; it's an uncommon option. But in your campaign, if your alchemist was captured by the drow and forced to brew poisons for them, the GM might add drow sleep poison and other uncommon options to the formulas available to your alchemist! Uncommon options make amazing rewards to find in adventures, and they can be found at a much higher rate than rare options, since they are more common in the world.

Rare

Something is rare if it's extremely difficult to obtain without doing something special in-world to find it. This means that rare options involve interplay between the player and the GM, or are granted by the GM directly. There's no way to get access to these through choices in your character build alone. Rare options are spells known only to the ancient runelords, techniques passed down by the grandmaster of an ancient monastery in the Wall of Heaven mountains, golem-crafting secrets of the Jistka Imperium, and the like.

Unique

Something is unique if there's only one. Most artifacts are unique, as are certain monsters, like the Sandpoint Devil or Grendel. No artifacts appear in the Playtest Rulebook, so in the playtest only a few Doomsday Dawn monsters and hazards are unique.

Uses of Rarity

So how is this system useful to you?

Worldbuilding and Emulating Genres

First of all, your group can really alter the flavor and feel of the game by changing around the commonness of certain elements, allowing for a wide variety of genre play and settings through a relatively simple system. This is a big tool in your toolkit for worldbuilding. What would a world be like where the wizard was uncommon, or where all healing magic was rare? You can create a new subgenre or setting simply by shifting around the assumptions of what elements are common, uncommon, and rare. The rarities in the Playtest Rulebook are meant to show a good baseline for a typical Pathfinder campaign and make for a solid default if you're not straying to far from classic fantasy, but I can't wait until people start posting their modified schemes for all sorts of different concepts, from prehistoric to horror, and from low-magic (all magic is uncommon or rare) to super high fantasy mash-up (everything is common!).

Mechanical Diversity without Cognitive Overload

While some groups go for a kitchen sink approach to available options, many groups want to allow options from other books but are tend to stick to the core content because of the sheer mental load of learning, using, and preparing for all of those options, especially on the GM. With rarity, you have a framework for adding more material without just opening the fire hose: you start with common content (for a new group, probably the things labeled as common in the book) and you expand into mastering uncommon and rare content only as it appears in your game. If a particular rare spell hasn't shown up in the game, you don't have to worry about how it might interact with your character's build or your NPC's plot in the same way you might otherwise. A player can bring some desired uncommon or rare options to the GM, who can get a feel for the rules involved and decide when and how to introduce those options to the campaign. If the PC is interested in spells and items from ancient Osirion, perhaps the PCs find a new quest that takes them there, or is contacted by an Osirionologist NPC who's willing to trade her Osirian secrets for the PCs' help with a different adventure.

We love games with plenty of options, but we also want to consider fans who've told us that though they love new options, they started becoming overwhelmed by just how many options there are in Pathfinder First Edition. With the rarity system, you can enjoy the best of both worlds.

Awesome Rewards

One thing that can be tough in Pathfinder First Edition is giving a reward to a PC whose player has already looked up all the options and bought or crafted all the items they really want, learned all the spells they really want, and so on, even if some of those items and spells really seemed like they wouldn't be available on the open market. Rarity allows a GM to give rewards that aren't easily available without needing to homebrew a brand new item or ability every time, and allows players who gain rarer options to feel special and important.

When you emerge from a Thassilonian tomb with a rare spell few have seen in millennia, wizards' guilds might start salivating over that knowledge. Will you keep it to yourself? Will you sell it to select wizards for a pretty penny? Will you spread the knowledge to all who desire it, possibly making the spell uncommon or even common in your setting? Or will you keep it to yourself to show off for the spellcasters you meet who have never heard of it? Only you can decide, giving you the power to make a permanent mark on the setting.

So how are you most excited to use the new rarity system?

Mark Seifter
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest
301 to 350 of 664 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:
If the monsters in the Bestiary get common/uncommon/rare applied to them, I'm going to go back to using the 2-20 encounter tables I used to run with in AD&D and make my setting more sandbox-y.
Supposedly, monsters had this in PF1 for Knowledge checks, we just never told you what they were beyond like goblins being very common in the example.

I love this change. And I love how you guys have identified all the vague, contradictory or troublesome rules from PF1 and found a better solution for them. It is like having a new season of a favorite TV show come out that finally ties up all the loose threads and fills the plot holes that have been nagging you for years. Good work!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Elleth wrote:
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Quote:
So we went from GM Fiat to an actual rule. The GM can always choose to ignore the rule... but by providing an official rule for this, the GM can go "it's in the rules" and not have to worry about players whining about the GM being arbitrary and unfair.

And why do we need the rule?

If a player is complaining to me about the rules, then I simply tell them that they are not looking for what I provide and they can either sit back and watch everyone else till they figure out what it is I am providing, and take part in that, or they can buzz off and find some other GM.

I think the main use of this rule is that it shifts the conversation from "hi DM, can I take this?" to "hi DM, which items are common? Can I have some uncommon items?"

That might not sound like much, but if this rule is laid out somewhere clear where players can easily read (whether or not it will be I can't yet say) I suspect that it makes a big difference in expectations.
I can think of a couple of my players at least that would respond pretty happily to "hey guys, we're using different common items" and be interested in what that means for the world, while they'd be OK with me just saying "sorry guys, that isn't in my setting" but it's very hard to imagine that actually getting anyone excited.
As a DM it's my job to actually have players on board and interested, else what's the point.

Um, no.

It doesn't work like that.

Take a thorough readthrough of the 3rd ed dungeon master guide.

It actually tells the gm to change class abilities to better fit a player's character concept. Then there is rule 0, explicitly mentioned. And numerous other things detailed in various places that get completely ignored in favor of what "everybody knows."

Sure. I've changed class abilities before. In my 5e game I even gave a slight modification to the sorcerer that, without changing its power level massively upped flexibility in how bloodlines worked, with a thematic caveat. My players loved it enough that I'm actually considering porting the lore over when I switch to PF2.

I'm fully aware the DM has full control. I've used it before. But it doesn't change the fact that using it sometimes feels bad, like I'm quashing player options. I know at least one of my players would get annoyed if I were to selectively enforce PC options.

Even if this system plays out the same, it's a difference in framing, like how "Hi there, we've got strawberry doughnuts" is different from "Hey, we're all out of chocolate doughnuts but we've got some strawberry ones left". Framing makes things feel different.
I'd think that most players are aware of rule 0, but it doesn't change the fact that quite simply it's usually not what they signed up for. If someone signed up for a 5e game, I can imagine they'd be upset if I ruled out half the book, unless those bans were the explicit theme of it (e.g. a brutal no-magic dungeoncrawl one-shot).

Rarity based gating with an explicit rule that item rarity is recommended as something that should be shifted between campaigns and even locations within a campaign to match flavour means you can show the players the rarity list and it'll feel more like you're giving something than banning something, especially if some uncommon things become shifted to common.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:


The book actually tells you that players should face mostly low level encounters, with a few equal level encounters, with rare high level encounters that really tax the group.

To quote this article,
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2050/roleplaying-games/revisiting-encou nter-design

I feel like this is tangentially related at best, perhaps to illustrate some larger point about blind following of the rules that everyone assumes but are overwritten by advice or DM fiat. But sure, I'll bite.

I've had PCs mugged by CR 1/4 gangsters they can splat in a single round, while at level 6 I threw a CR23 elemental at them which killed upwards of 30 allies every round. By the end of the fight there was only one PC left standing, drained of resources, and the other 4 were unconscious. Their base of operations sank and generally we all had an amazing session.
I'm more than aware that what everyone assumes doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Rot Grub wrote:

I don't know if this is the time and place to raise this, but I've never been a fan of identifying monster abilities via Knowledge checks in PF1, and tying that to level/CR. To my brain, if a creature is more powerful, it is more legendary -- it is more well known. More people might know about a unique dragon's ability to create darkness with its fire, for example. Maybe they'll know less about how to DEFEAT it, such as more information on its defenses.

PF1's default system makes this a mechanical roll vs. DC mechanic. It doesn't allow for more particularized "gatekeeping," so to speak, the way that PF2 seems to be handling skills and now access to knowledge in PF2. I prefer this latter approach.

Now, I will be admitting my GM bias here, but I like it when an entire spell list is not available to up and coming wizards. I've preferred the 1st and 2nd edition approach of having wizards find scrolls or other spell books to expand their knowledge. It keeps magic mysterious, and means that wizards jealously hoard their knowledge. 3rd edition D&D and PF1 seem to follow the "magic mart" approach, where trade of goods, even of ESOTERIC MAGIC, is so highly developed that getting something is almost as simple as ordering from Amazon. No thanks.

I like that PF2 is now taking the concept of GMs having more control of worldbuilding and baking it within the default system.

I used spell rarity during my 2ed AD&D campaigns. Anything with a person name in it was, at least, uncommon. I had a player change the rarity of a spell from Very rare (know only to the wizard that created it and his apprentices) to uncommon (available in the libraries of all the major temples of Mystra and those of the War Wizards of Cormyr).

:-)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Are Exotic weapons even needed now ?

They're defining 'Exotic' weapons as those that are statistically superior to martial ones. Since some people want 'better' weapons, that seems a valid niche.

I'm not entirely sure about calling them 'Exotic' at that point, though. 'Superior' feels wrong, however, and I'm legitimately unsure what other term to use.

Complex weapons : difficult to use and a nice progression from Simple to Martial to Complex

Liberty's Edge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Darkorin wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


We wouldn't want to specify exactly what you do when retraining your sorcerer spells specifically to allow you to decide how it works. Like if we said it's always a blood transfusion, some people might be too grossed out and others would love it. Letting you decide how to describe why your sorcerer is cool, specifically when it comes to gaining cool new powers is something we want to encourage.

I'm honestly kind of sad... it seems logical for wizards to find new uncommon spell/scrolls,etc... but the proposed system doesn't seem to work that well for other classes.

Same thing with the new spell format, spontaneous spellcasters spell known and Spontaneous Heightening.

The new systems are great and neat and work great for part of the system (the solution is really great for wizard), but it's sad that other part of the system/universe seems to be an afterthought or at least not as elegant.

I hope that between now and the final version of the product a lot more thought will be put toward these anomaly.

Edit: I can easily think why you can find old spellcasting books or scrolls containing uncommon spell, but it's a lot harder to think there are blood vials everywhere that you are ready to inject into your body for no good reason... That system works well for Bioshock, maybe not for Pathfinder :/

Edit 2: By the way, I really like the new sorcerer, it's just that it does not seems to fit nicely with the new spell system.

Player. "I am a cleric of Shelyn from Korvosa." GM: "As Korvosa is a city with a lot of statues (and gargoyles posing as statues), you get uncommon clerical spells that manipulate stone or discover creatures posing as something different."

Player: "My cleric character want to take this archetype centered about destroying undead."
GM. "Ok, that is surely thaught by several sects of the church of Iomeade. In Korvosa there are the Sword of Righteousness and the Shield of Purity. beside the archetype, the first teaches the spell Smite Abomination, the latter Pillar of Life, they don't require you to follow special rules, besides reporting new kinds of undead and following the tenets of Iomeade. They can teach other spells and archetypes, but I haven't yet made a list (I have just now invented them). Do you want to make some suggestion? Send me a mail. The Shields are mostly about protecting people from menaces, the Sword about destroying it proactively."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Are Exotic weapons even needed now ?

They're defining 'Exotic' weapons as those that are statistically superior to martial ones. Since some people want 'better' weapons, that seems a valid niche.

I'm not entirely sure about calling them 'Exotic' at that point, though. 'Superior' feels wrong, however, and I'm legitimately unsure what other term to use.

Complex weapons : difficult to use and a nice progression from Simple to Martial to Complex

Well, if we had to change weapon categories...

Martial is a little silly. All weapons are technically martial - it means "combat-related". Spears and maces are *definitely* martial weapons.

So, perhaps, simple - advanced - complex.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This also has some interesting applications for helping during character creation or spell selection. In a world where magic is common and marketable, one can pretty much count on the most broadly useful spells to become Common. You ought to be able to find scrolls of Heal anywhere that sells magic, really. However, lots of spells have very specific niche uses, or uses that are mostly relevant in highly specialized environments. Aside from being neat from an immersion perspective, with water breathing being easier to get in coastal towns than deserts this also serves to de-clutter the general spell lists and make it easier to parse them for the gems.

Quote:
Also, requiring a multi quest side campaign to get a thing is something that should only be reserved for the very most powerful options, and only when you're willing to offer every other player equal spotlight so you're not playing favorites. If it's barely more powerful than a common option but is arbitrarily rare, that just becomes a huge mess to deal with.

That seems like an easy thing to account for though. For items, just make it something that is not only rare but a higher level than what they have come across up until now. For spells, just make it something that is very specifically useful to the adventures of these PCs.

kwiqsilver wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
edduardco wrote:
What about Research? There will be a Downtime option to Research Spells and Formulas similar to Crafting items? And if yes, would a PC able to Research Rare Spells and Formulas?

With the way rare is defined, I'd probably guess "no." Rare stuff seems to require explicit interaction with the GM, rather than being something you can do on your own as part of a general rule.

And to be fair, I personally kinda like that. After all, it lessens how special a rare spell is if any wizard can spend a week in the library and just happen to perfectly recreate the secret spell of an ancient runelord which has been lost for ages...

This is fairly accurate. Now, if you found a few rare scribbled notes that weren't the whole lost spell but enough to begin the process of research? That's a whole different animal!

Why should it be inherently more difficult to recreate a rare or unique spell? Finding a scroll or a copy in a spell book? Yes. Finding descriptions of it or notes about it in the texts of the church of Nethys? Sure. But recreating a rare spell should be no more difficult than creating a new spell.

I see the following situations:

Second hand experience
The character hears about the spell in stories, reads about it in an old text, etc.
This should be no different than if the player decides to research a spell that does the same thing as the original spell without hearing the legends first. It might not exactly replicate that spell, but it should be limited in its fidelity only by the accuracy of the records.

First hand experience
The character observes the casting and/or effect of the spell.
The character should be able to analyze the somatic, verbal, and/or material components used and gain insight to the spell. If the character can see or experience the effect of the spell it should be easier to replicate it. Seeing the spell cast multiple times should make it easier to replicate, while...

There are a lot of assumptions about how spell creation works here. This was an optional rule in PF1 and I'd be shocked if spell creation was in the playtest at all. I wouldn't sweat this until we get the core rulebook and maybe some book space on the four essences.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Player. "I am a cleric of Shelyn from Korvosa." GM: "As Korvosa is a city with a lot of statues (and gargoyles posing as statues), you get uncommon clerical spells that manipulate stone or discover creatures posing as something different."

Player: "My cleric character want to take this archetype centered about destroying undead."
GM. "Ok, that is surely thaught by several sects of the church of Iomeade. In Korvosa there are the Sword of Righteousness and the Shield of Purity. beside the archetype, the first...

Brilliant, Diego. It could definitely work like that.

For wizards it would be perfect.

For clerics... I should read how it works in PF2. If they can cast any spell from the divine list, should there be divine spells only some orders know? Maybe the deity favors their followers with different choices according to their needs... in that case your examples would work beautifully.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
If I have an idea then that can be treated as my character inspiration, but if I read it somewhere it can't? what about a spell I read about in another game? or an effect I see in a film? does my character have to justify that too?

Who's saying anything about character concepts? They're quite obviously not putting tags on those.

A spell you read about in another game? It has no tags at the moment, it doesn't exist. You'll have to talk about it with the GM, adapt it, and research it, same as always.

It really is mind-boggling how a lot of people are getting so hung-up with the basic concept that a katana can't be found at every single Wiscrani swordsmith's, or that Blood Money is just not a thing outside of Karzoug's personal spellbook, or that to take the Gray Maiden prestige archetype you must have been, big shocker, a friggin' Gray Maiden.

I think you misunderstand - I do not understand why a GM would treat a players request to research a spell differently based on where the player got the idea from - either you allow spell research or you don't and if you do you base the merits of the proposed spell on what it does, not on where the original idea for it came from.

I don't have a problem with a spell only existing in Karzougs spell book, but saying no-one else in the whole world can come up with a similar idea is, to me, ridiculous and metagamey.

I mean sure, say no because the spell is too powerful, or thematically inappropriate, or any of a dozen other legitimate reasons, but if you are allowing spell research I don't think you should just say no because it's already printed somewhere else.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like this as a GM. It's really just a tagging system, so it's easy to wrap heads around. Like a pike...

As a player, my experiences tell me that this is going to frustrate me. But that's just anecdote, and says more about the GMs I've played under than how the system will actually flow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tangent101 wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
edduardco wrote:

If it is not possible to research rare spells, does that mean that research and development is no longer allowed?

How those rare and unique spells came to be? Were they spontaneously generated somewhere? Or does it mean R&D is something that only NPCs can do because reasons?

So if a player has an idea for a spell they want to create and they have the chops to pull this off, we can work together to come up with the rules for the spell (per rules for this when they exist).

If a spell already exists in a book somewhere, and it's marked as "rare" I would require the character to have some idea that the spell actually exists and what it does before they can research it. Spells which have been sealed in some Runelord's vault for several thousand years are spells that a character has no reason to be aware of before cracking said vault.

If a player read about a rare spell in a book and wants it for their character, they can let me know and I will try to work it in somewhere. It's not fundamentally different from when the fighter says "I'm looking for magic fauchards".

So if a player has an idea for a spell they can research it, but if it is already printed they need to justify why they can research it?

If I have an idea then that can be treated as my character inspiration, but if I read it somewhere it can't? what about a spell I read about in another game? or an effect I see in a film? does my character have to justify that too?

Yes. And for that matter, I may very well do this even if it's a unique spell if I feel it would unbalance the game in some way.

Unless you have a history of your character coming up with various interesting spells and then have your character constantly doing spell research, then if I find you created Blood Money for a spell you want to research, I'm going to suspect you got it from Paizo.

After all, what would you do if your GM just said "I don't approve of this spell and...

How is spell research any different than crafting magic items? In more games were crafting is even allowed, characters can only craft magic items published and very rarely custom magic items. But for some reason spells have this reversed, a character could create custom spells but not spells published? How does that make any sense?


Ultimatecalibur wrote:
edduardco wrote:

If it is not possible to research rare spells, does that mean that research and development is no longer allowed?

How those rare and unique spells came to be? Were they spontaneously generated somewhere? Or does it mean R&D is something that only NPCs can do because reasons?

Not necessarily. GMs can easily set conditions for various levels of research.

Common spells/recipes might only need a travel notebook and a few days time to work out.
Uncommon spells/recipes require a well-stocked library/laboratory to research.
Rare spells/recipes might require researching at an Academy's Grand Library and experimentation with rare materials.
Unique spells/recipes might require observing once in a life time events or traveling to unique locals.

And that would be OK, but right now looks like that is not even an option, I think it should be.

Although I prefer the suggestion from The Black Raven

The Raven Black wrote:
Could be based on proficiency in the appropriate Skill : Expert for Uncommon, Master for Rare and Legendary for Unique


2 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
If I have an idea then that can be treated as my character inspiration, but if I read it somewhere it can't? what about a spell I read about in another game? or an effect I see in a film? does my character have to justify that too?

Who's saying anything about character concepts? They're quite obviously not putting tags on those.

A spell you read about in another game? It has no tags at the moment, it doesn't exist. You'll have to talk about it with the GM, adapt it, and research it, same as always.

It really is mind-boggling how a lot of people are getting so hung-up with the basic concept that a katana can't be found at every single Wiscrani swordsmith's, or that Blood Money is just not a thing outside of Karzoug's personal spellbook, or that to take the Gray Maiden prestige archetype you must have been, big shocker, a friggin' Gray Maiden.

I think you misunderstand - I do not understand why a GM would treat a players request to research a spell differently based on where the player got the idea from - either you allow spell research or you don't and if you do you base the merits of the proposed spell on what it does, not on where the original idea for it came from.

I don't have a problem with a spell only existing in Karzougs spell book, but saying no-one else in the whole world can come up with a similar idea is, to me, ridiculous and metagamey.

I mean sure, say no because the spell is too powerful, or thematically inappropriate, or any of a dozen other legitimate reasons, but if you are allowing spell research I don't think you should just say no because it's already printed somewhere else.

Well, I'd need more info about how rarity and spell research interconnect. It might be that non-common spells are actually more difficult to research, as well as it might not. If they're not inherently more difficult though, why isn't every caster who is capable of researching spells actually using them? I feel there's a connection there - but we'll see later on, I guess.

I totally understand how you see creating a spell that has the same effect as another something that the latter's rarity shouldn't impact. Per se, logically, it shouldn't - if I come up with a spell that lets me teleport from enemy to enemy and slash at them like Ciri in The Witcher 3, and someone else in the setting has a similar spell that is rare, that shouldn't influence my research efforts in the slightest, because I'm just taking a concept from another game, which doesn't even exist in the campaign.

So yes, in this instance I do agree with you.

There's also another possible hang-up, though - culture. The same way Rondelero duel school emphasizes falcata and buckler, Minkaian samurai culture focuses on katana, wakizashi, daikyu, naginata and similar weapons from samurai hoplology.

In the same way, it might be that within a certain magical tradition, like Varisian tattooed sorcery, or Acadamae diabolist conjuration, and so on, some arcane concepts are common, and others are less so - which might mean, spitballing here, that within the frame of Varisian tattooed sorcery you should be able to research a spell like Karzoug's Blood Money more easily than, say, Major Infernal Healing, and vice versa.

What I'm getting at is that a tradition might influence your mindframe with its main concepts and make a rare spell very disassociated with its principles harder for you to research as well. Same way an Andoren swordsmith wouldn't even think of trying and forge something like a katana, if they had never seen one.

Just a possibility.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just wanted to say I love this - nice work here.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Spell Research was always an optional rule that required GM discretion in its application. Rare magic isn't too much different from this, except now it is explicitly defined as such. So rare does not mean "impossible," it means extremely difficult to do without some plot tie in.

Rare wrote:
Something is rare if it's extremely difficult to obtain without doing something special in-world to find it. This means that rare options involve interplay between the player and the GM, or are granted by the GM directly. There's no way to get access to these through choices in your character build alone.

For example. In a setting were Resurrection magic is rare. Trying to craft your own resurrection spell through spell research could run into the immediate problem of not having any points of reference. It doesn't matter how many libraries you rummage through, you don't have anything comparable to work off of and constantly run into problems when trying to develop a resurrection spell of your own. Even worse, every time you think you solve one problem, two more seem to appear. It is not inconceivable that without some point of appropriate reference (such as stumbling upon a rare resurrection ritual hidden away for ages), your character could spend multiple lifetimes without successfully making the spell they wanted. After all, in real world history there have been problems passed on from father to son for generations before anyone could finally arrive at a solution.

dragonhunterq wrote:

I don't have a problem with a spell only existing in Karzougs spell book, but saying no-one else in the whole world can come up with a similar idea is, to me, ridiculous and metagamey.

I mean sure, say no because the spell is too powerful, or thematically inappropriate, or any of a dozen other legitimate reasons, but if you are allowing spell research I don't think you should just say no because it's already printed somewhere else.

Really? I'm not up to date on Golarian lore, but it would seem that Karzoug was a 20th level caster, probably with legendary proficiency, who lived in a very different time and thus likely used a different framework and references when crafting his own stuff (which would be unknown to the PC without some special aid).

Sure someone else can come up with the idea, but that doesn't mean they can execute it as efficiently as Karzoug could. Imagine that a wizard tries to make Blood Money off of rumors they heard. They end up with a 3rd level spell that takes a full round to cast. It wastes too much magic and takes too long, making the spell effectively useless. Without some idea of how Karzoug managed efficiently weave the magic into such a quick casting, a wizard could easily need to be a legend in their own right before they could hope to mimic Karzoug's magic without any extra information on it.


Spell Rarity relates to research in that it will affect where you have to go, or what you need to have, to perform the research.

"Common" Spells can be found in almost any magical library in the Inner Sea. The lore for Magic Missile IX is easy to find; it makes a nice phamphlet, alongside some basic cantrips to give the apprentice some goals, and you a measuring stick for their progress. However I doubt being "Common" means that every wizardly inclined member of the guard is going to be slinging Magic Missile IXs.

Considering the blog relates closely the topic of using skills to itentify things, I speculate that the only advantage spells will glean from rarity is how difficult it it to identify the spell. Once you are 'allowed' to research an uncommon spell, the impression I have is that it won't be any harder to research than a common spell (and will still count against a sorcerer's repertoire just the same)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:

I'm not up to date on Golarian lore, but it would seem that Karzoug was a 20th level caster, probably with legendary proficiency, who lived in a very different time and thus likely used a different framework and references when crafting his own stuff (which would be unknown to the PC without some special aid).

Sure someone else can come up with the idea, but that doesn't mean they can execute it as efficiently as Karzoug could. Imagine that a wizard tries to make Blood Money off of rumors they heard. They end up with a 3rd level spell that takes a full round to cast. It wastes too much magic and takes too long, making the spell effectively useless. Without some idea of how Karzoug managed efficiently weave the magic into such a quick casting, a wizard could easily need to be a legend in their own right before they could hope to mimic Karzoug's magic without any extra information on it.

Beautifully put.

Also, IMHO Karzoug would have been really into that particular spell, hence willing to spend years (decades?) researching and experimenting for it, which a PC might not be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:

I don't have a problem with a spell only existing in Karzougs spell book, but saying no-one else in the whole world can come up with a similar idea is, to me, ridiculous and metagamey.

I mean sure, say no because the spell is too powerful, or thematically inappropriate, or any of a dozen other legitimate reasons, but if you are allowing spell research I don't think you should just say no because it's already printed somewhere else.

Really? I'm not up to date on Golarian lore, but it would seem that Karzoug was a 20th level caster, probably with legendary proficiency, who lived in a very different time and thus likely used a different framework and references when crafting his own stuff (which would be unknown to the PC without some special aid).

Sure someone else can come up with the idea, but that doesn't mean they can execute it as efficiently as Karzoug could. Imagine that a wizard tries to make Blood Money off of rumors they heard. They end up with a 3rd level spell that takes a full round to cast. It wastes too much magic and takes too long, making the spell effectively useless. Without some idea of how Karzoug managed efficiently weave the magic into such a quick casting, a wizard could easily need to be a legend in their own right before they could hope to mimic Karzoug's magic without any extra information on it.

This, to me, reads like an excellent point. Again, I'm holding my horses because we still don't have all the pieces of the puzzle, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ended up working like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
If I have an idea then that can be treated as my character inspiration, but if I read it somewhere it can't? what about a spell I read about in another game? or an effect I see in a film? does my character have to justify that too?

Who's saying anything about character concepts? They're quite obviously not putting tags on those.

A spell you read about in another game? It has no tags at the moment, it doesn't exist. You'll have to talk about it with the GM, adapt it, and research it, same as always.

It really is mind-boggling how a lot of people are getting so hung-up with the basic concept that a katana can't be found at every single Wiscrani swordsmith's, or that Blood Money is just not a thing outside of Karzoug's personal spellbook, or that to take the Gray Maiden prestige archetype you must have been, big shocker, a friggin' Gray Maiden.

I think you misunderstand - I do not understand why a GM would treat a players request to research a spell differently based on where the player got the idea from - either you allow spell research or you don't and if you do you base the merits of the proposed spell on what it does, not on where the original idea for it came from.

I don't have a problem with a spell only existing in Karzougs spell book, but saying no-one else in the whole world can come up with a similar idea is, to me, ridiculous and metagamey.

I mean sure, say no because the spell is too powerful, or thematically inappropriate, or any of a dozen other legitimate reasons, but if you are allowing spell research I don't think you should just say no because it's already printed somewhere else.

Well, I'd need more info about how rarity and spell research interconnect. It might be that non-common spells are actually more difficult to research, as well as it might not. If they're not inherently more difficult though, why isn't every caster who is capable of researching spells actually using them? I...

Yes spell research should be more difficult according to rarity, but from what I understood from Mark research is just not allowed, and I think it should be a legit downtime activity along sides crafting or building a stronghold.


edduardco wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
If I have an idea then that can be treated as my character inspiration, but if I read it somewhere it can't? what about a spell I read about in another game? or an effect I see in a film? does my character have to justify that too?

Who's saying anything about character concepts? They're quite obviously not putting tags on those.

A spell you read about in another game? It has no tags at the moment, it doesn't exist. You'll have to talk about it with the GM, adapt it, and research it, same as always.

It really is mind-boggling how a lot of people are getting so hung-up with the basic concept that a katana can't be found at every single Wiscrani swordsmith's, or that Blood Money is just not a thing outside of Karzoug's personal spellbook, or that to take the Gray Maiden prestige archetype you must have been, big shocker, a friggin' Gray Maiden.

I think you misunderstand - I do not understand why a GM would treat a players request to research a spell differently based on where the player got the idea from - either you allow spell research or you don't and if you do you base the merits of the proposed spell on what it does, not on where the original idea for it came from.

I don't have a problem with a spell only existing in Karzougs spell book, but saying no-one else in the whole world can come up with a similar idea is, to me, ridiculous and metagamey.

I mean sure, say no because the spell is too powerful, or thematically inappropriate, or any of a dozen other legitimate reasons, but if you are allowing spell research I don't think you should just say no because it's already printed somewhere else.

Well, I'd need more info about how rarity and spell research interconnect. It might be that non-common spells are actually more difficult to research, as well as it might not. If they're not inherently more difficult though, why isn't every caster who is capable of researching
...

If it's not allowed, I can assure you it's only for this playtest. I'm willing to bet whatever you wish spell research will be part of the downtime activies when the actual PF2 rules are published.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:

And that would be OK, but right now looks like that is not even an option, I think it should be.

Do not confuse not currently an option with not a possible option.

Quote:


Although I prefer the suggestion from The Black Raven

The Raven Black wrote:
Could be based on proficiency in the appropriate Skill : Expert for Uncommon, Master for Rare and Legendary for Unique

Which level locks uncommon, rare and unique spell research. Why can't witnessing a once in a lifetime event lead a low level novice spellcaster to develop of a rare or unique variation of Magic Missile?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think with rarity being part of golarion's new lore structure, many spells could have originated in the hands of Sorcerers who didn't realize a particular spell they knew was Unique (Rare, or just Uncommon) until it blew some Wizard's mind to witness and the begged for instruction.
Also sort of like how in Eberron there are a few Common Dragonmarks, and a whole bunch of Rare "aberrant" Dragonmarks.


Wait, I'm confused about spell rarity. How does that work with Sorcerers (who don't really learn spells) and Clerics (who get spells from their gods) and Druids (who get them from being filthy hippies!)?

Like, take Blood Money, which people here have mentioned. It's not just a Wizard spell (which is what Karzoug was), it's also a Magus spell (no problem, Magi learn just like Wizards) a Sorcerer Spell, and a Witch Spell.

How do you justify gating it off to Sorcerer's and Witches? A Sorcerer's magic is an expression of their inner magic, their bloodline. Just because Karzoug had to research it doesn't mean it couldn't spontaneously appear in a Sorcerer, or other spontaneous spellcaster.

Unless you say these spells are so rare that the only way a spontaneous caster can have them is if they have a Page of Spell Knowledge with it, then it makes no sense.

And a Witch gets her spells from her Patron and Familiar. Who are you to say they are as constrained as Karzoug was with spells? Why must otherwordly forces be as limited as a mortal man? This applies to gods too, by the way. And the Druid's nature worshipping...thing.

I can see the value of asigning rarity to build the world, but while it works for manufactured stuff, it doesn't really work with spells when several classes don't have to learn any spell. Spontaneous and Divine casters don't learn anything, they get their spells from sources that do not care at all about rarity (either their own innate blood, or forces beyond the reach of such trivialities.).


TheFinish wrote:

Wait, I'm confused about spell rarity. How does that work with Sorcerers (who don't really learn spells) and Clerics (who get spells from their gods) and Druids (who get them from being filthy hippies!)?

Like, take Blood Money, which people here have mentioned. It's not just a Wizard spell (which is what Karzoug was), it's also a Magus spell (no problem, Magi learn just like Wizards) a Sorcerer Spell, and a Witch Spell.

How do you justify gating it off to Sorcerer's and Witches? A Sorcerer's magic is an expression of their inner magic, their bloodline.

Mark clarified that such casters can still 'literally find' spells, just like a wizard. So I presume that any arcane spellcaster (wizard, sorcerer, or otherwise) could spend time researching Karzoug's spellbook to master the Unique spell(s) it contains.

So it is gated off for the same reason as for wizards... just because your magic is fueld by something else doesn't mean you don't still have to study, practice, and learn magic. Somebody has to teach you Magic Missile.

Even the PF1 CRB mentions that clerics and druids have texts on magical lore, so presumably so do Sorcerers. These casters just don't need just tomes on hand like Wizards do. Other forms of magic are simpler or easier to internalize than wizardry.
Sorcerers I've always thought of as mastering their spells by rote and practice, not as some weird spontaneous mutation or 'radiation accident'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Sure someone else can come up with the idea, but that doesn't mean they can execute it as efficiently as Karzoug could. Imagine that a wizard tries to make Blood Money off of rumors they heard. They end up with a 3rd level spell that takes a full round to cast. It wastes too much magic and takes too long, making the spell effectively useless. Without some idea of how Karzoug managed efficiently weave the magic into such a quick casting, a wizard could easily need to be a legend in their own right before they could hope to mimic Karzoug's magic without any extra information on it.

All reasonable points, I don't take issue with any of them or any flavour based explanation. This is about independent research with no rumours/notes or anything - just saying that the character has an original idea.

Because there is a line between player knowledge and how your character comes by information. Saying that a character cannot research/create a unique spell that a player read in a PF book just because it is already published, but he can research/create a unique spell that the player saw in a computer game creates an artificial distinction that grates.

EDIT - removed a bad point made whilst hungry


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

Wait, I'm confused about spell rarity. How does that work with Sorcerers (who don't really learn spells) and Clerics (who get spells from their gods) and Druids (who get them from being filthy hippies!)?

Like, take Blood Money, which people here have mentioned. It's not just a Wizard spell (which is what Karzoug was), it's also a Magus spell (no problem, Magi learn just like Wizards) a Sorcerer Spell, and a Witch Spell.

How do you justify gating it off to Sorcerer's and Witches? A Sorcerer's magic is an expression of their inner magic, their bloodline.

Mark clarified that such casters can still 'literally find' spells, just like a wizard. So I presume that any arcane spellcaster (wizard, sorcerer, or otherwise) could spend time researching Karzoug's spellbook to master the Unique spell(s) it contains.

So it is gated off for the same reason as for wizards... just because your magic is fueld by something else doesn't mean you don't still have to study, practice, and learn magic. Somebody has to teach you Magic Missile.

Even the PF1 CRB mentions that clerics and druids have texts on magical lore, so presumably so do Sorcerers. These casters just don't need just tomes on hand like Wizards do. Other forms of magic are simpler or easier to internalize than wizardry.
Sorcerers I've always thought of as mastering their spells by rote and practice, not as some weird spontaneous mutation or 'radiation accident'.

That's very anti-intuitive for me, though, and I don't think only for me. I and others have always envisioned sorcerers simply tapping into the magic of their mystic heritage, which expresses as spells, but not learning them from a book or from a teacher. DIY spellcasting. Wizards don't have any particular magic potential, but they're brainy enough to learn spells from books and schools and mentors. Sorcerers don't need that, they just develop new uses for their inborn magic.

As for clerics, they pray and their deity gives them what they ask for, within reason. But I'm gonna check the old rules and see if they say anything about clerical spells being preserved in old books, although that seems weird.

Druids do much the same thing, although for many of them it's just a connection to nature, instead of asking a god.

Witches, well, the entity gives them spells through their familiar. It depends on the entity's whims I guess, but they could potentially get any spell the patron deigns to put at their disposal. Although I'm not an expert about witches so I'll check that too.

I still think we really need actual hard rules about how all these classes get their spells, or we'll never reach something coherent regarding the methods they get their spells by, whether it'd be possible for them to research new spells, and how.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Again, I'd be shocked if an optional system like creating new spells made it into a playtest document designed around having controlled parameters.

And once you remove the idea of simply creating your own spells, you get into some really wacky meta considerations for how spells work and why "researching" them doesn't make a lot of sense. Spells in Pathfinder have always been unrealistically precise and uniform. Every 5th level caster's fireball does the same damage over the same dimensions at the same range, minus very modifications that tend to be agnostic of the spell in question anyway. Asking "why can't I research this rare spell effect?" is bad question when we haven't even answered "Why can't I make a fireball that concentrates twice the damage into half the areas?"

There's an analogy for magic in Pathfinder that magic is part of the source code of the universe, and that spell caster are it's hackers. But while this analogy may be accurate for Pathfinder as a world, it definitely isn't true for Pathfinder as a game. See, once you hack into something and start rooting around in the code, you have a lot of freedom with what you can do with it. Hack into the source code of Skyrim and you can turn all the trees in the world to hands, turn dragons into Thomas the Tank Engine, grant yourself immortality, or just about anything else if you put your mind to it long enough.

In Pathfinder, we have a more limited set of pre-defined ways we can alter the world. In effect, spells are old school style cheat codes left into the developer. You input the right button combination and a very specific thing happens. Clerics get these codes directly from their gods. Sorcerers and wizards learn to punch them in themselves, with sorcerers being able to do it more intuitively than wizards. And fighters and other non-casters just spent their time learning to play the game better instead of learning complicated cheat codes. ;)

When your wizard "researches a spell" in actual play he's not actually creating something new. He's merely looking up cheat codes that somebody else created and another party probably discovered, and writing them down for later. Common spells are the ones that are easy to find. The less common the spell, the harder it is to find. And just because you put time into figuring it out doesn't mean you will.

I might want a spell that turns me into a sentient pickle, but I can't actually make that spell. Now, some wacky old wizard named Ricklin may have invented a picklificiation spell, and I may have even heard of it, but I am not going to be able to recreate that effect without somehow learning it from Ricklin. Where as magic I can learn magic missile just about anywhere.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Sure someone else can come up with the idea, but that doesn't mean they can execute it as efficiently as Karzoug could. Imagine that a wizard tries to make Blood Money off of rumors they heard. They end up with a 3rd level spell that takes a full round to cast. It wastes too much magic and takes too long, making the spell effectively useless. Without some idea of how Karzoug managed efficiently weave the magic into such a quick casting, a wizard could easily need to be a legend in their own right before they could hope to mimic Karzoug's magic without any extra information on it.

All reasonable points, I don't take issue with any of them or any flavour based explanation. This is about independent research with no rumours/notes or anything - just saying that the character has an original idea.

Because there is a line between player knowledge and how your character comes by information. Saying that a character cannot research/create a unique spell that a player read in a PF book just because it is already published, but he can research/create a unique spell that the player saw in a computer game creates an artificial distinction that grates.

I guess the primary point is I prefer a hard ban to the artifice of rarity.

I don't get why, though. According to Charon's explanation, you'll probably be able to research a new spell doing a variation of the effects of Blood Money. Your GM will probably tell you, look, considering the circumstances, you won't be able to replicate the best current variant of this spell, but you can get something lesser, that you might still find useful, if you're so inclined. So it's up to you.

Why would you prefer a hard ban instead of choice?


Roswynn wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

Wait, I'm confused about spell rarity. How does that work with Sorcerers (who don't really learn spells) and Clerics (who get spells from their gods) and Druids (who get them from being filthy hippies!)?

Like, take Blood Money, which people here have mentioned. It's not just a Wizard spell (which is what Karzoug was), it's also a Magus spell (no problem, Magi learn just like Wizards) a Sorcerer Spell, and a Witch Spell.

How do you justify gating it off to Sorcerer's and Witches? A Sorcerer's magic is an expression of their inner magic, their bloodline.

Mark clarified that such casters can still 'literally find' spells, just like a wizard. So I presume that any arcane spellcaster (wizard, sorcerer, or otherwise) could spend time researching Karzoug's spellbook to master the Unique spell(s) it contains.

So it is gated off for the same reason as for wizards... just because your magic is fueld by something else doesn't mean you don't still have to study, practice, and learn magic. Somebody has to teach you Magic Missile.

Even the PF1 CRB mentions that clerics and druids have texts on magical lore, so presumably so do Sorcerers. These casters just don't need just tomes on hand like Wizards do. Other forms of magic are simpler or easier to internalize than wizardry.
Sorcerers I've always thought of as mastering their spells by rote and practice, not as some weird spontaneous mutation or 'radiation accident'.

That's very anti-intuitive for me, though, and I don't think only for me. I and others have always envisioned sorcerers simply tapping into the magic of their mystic heritage, which expresses as spells, but not learning them from a book or from a teacher. DIY spellcasting. Wizards don't have any particular magic potential, but they're brainy enough to learn spells from books and schools and mentors. Sorcerers don't need that, they just develop new uses for their inborn magic.

If that were the case, wouldn't a sorcerer find it equally easy to develop a new-to-them use that nobody else has found (i.e. to research a truly new spell) as to develop a new-to-them use that's well-known? Why do sorcerers have to spend time and gold to research new-to-the-world spells, same as wizards, but not new-to-the-sorcerer spells?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:

Wait, I'm confused about spell rarity. How does that work with Sorcerers (who don't really learn spells) and Clerics (who get spells from their gods) and Druids (who get them from being filthy hippies!)?

Like, take Blood Money, which people here have mentioned. It's not just a Wizard spell (which is what Karzoug was), it's also a Magus spell (no problem, Magi learn just like Wizards) a Sorcerer Spell, and a Witch Spell.

How do you justify gating it off to Sorcerer's and Witches? A Sorcerer's magic is an expression of their inner magic, their bloodline. Just because Karzoug had to research it doesn't mean it couldn't spontaneously appear in a Sorcerer, or other spontaneous spellcaster.

Unless you say these spells are so rare that the only way a spontaneous caster can have them is if they have a Page of Spell Knowledge with it, then it makes no sense.

And a Witch gets her spells from her Patron and Familiar. Who are you to say they are as constrained as Karzoug was with spells? Why must otherwordly forces be as limited as a mortal man? This applies to gods too, by the way. And the Druid's nature worshipping...thing.

I can see the value of asigning rarity to build the world, but while it works for manufactured stuff, it doesn't really work with spells when several classes don't have to learn any spell. Spontaneous and Divine casters don't learn anything, they get their spells from sources that do not care at all about rarity (either their own innate blood, or forces beyond the reach of such trivialities.).

To stick with my previous example of cheat codes, sorceres are born knowing some of these codes, and can potentially forget some to learn more. Witches get these guides handed to them by a patron/familiar. Clerics get the codes given to them by their god. And a wizard goes and digs around on the internet to find them. Druids... I'm gonna wait until we get more information on Primal casting before I comment on druids.

Your sorcerer gets SOME of their spells specifically selected by their bloodline. But the spells they choose they are still learning to cast. Being able to retrain these spells means these spell choices aren't predetermined by your blood. Sorcerers are just able to naturally intuit how to attune themselves to various spells. And the common spells are the ones that are easier to learn how to do this with.

A god, patron, or familiar may in fact grant uncommon spells. But they don't grant ALL the uncommon spells. There are lots of reasons this could be the case. Maybe they can't-- maybe they don't actually know the rare spells, or maybe there is some kind of agreement between gods about not sharing the spells for trademark domains. Maybe they just think those other spells are unworthy and don't want to encourage their followers to learn it. Or maybe the powers that be just think it is funny to watch mortals struggle. Whatever the case, if the caster discovers and applicable spell/code on their own, the gods/patron/familiar tolerates it enough for them to use it.

But regardless of how people obtained a particular cheat codes, it always does the same things when entered. And I don't think it is a leap from there to say different classes have similar levels of access to learning these codes in the first place. (At least, within the same campaign setting. As mentioned, once you start having characters from different parts of the world the assumptions change and these rules can reflect that, too.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheFinish wrote:
How do you justify gating it off to Sorcerer's and Witches? A Sorcerer's magic is an expression of their inner magic, their bloodline. Just because Karzoug had to research it doesn't mean it couldn't spontaneously appear in a Sorcerer, or other spontaneous spellcaster.

The explanation depends on how sorcerers and other spontaneous spellcasters learn their spells. I imagine a bard might learn of bard spells through training songs, and he tries new spell songs until he finds on that works for him. That would definitely encourage Common bard spells.

In my Iron Gods campaign, I had a cantrip-casting NPC bloodrager who thought she was an apprentice wizard with a level of barbarian, Iron Gods among Scientists #8. She studied her wizard spellbook every morning to prepare her cantrips, not realizing that that was not necessary. In that case, she would have ignored any innate magic that did not match the wizard spells that she was trying to learn. At 4th level I copied her 1st-level spells out of her father's spellbook, too (I had to fill out the spellbook so that the party magus could copy spells from it).

The retraining mechanic for sorcerers and bloodragers suggests that if a spell is ignored too much, the sorcerer loses the ability to cast it.

Imagine a sorcerer who realizes she has gained more power that could manifest as new spells (i.e., she leveled up). She waves her arms, says words that feel right, and notices flames around her fingers. This could be a fireball!, she thinks. She tries altering the words and gesturing differently for better results. No matter what she does, she cannot make the fire fly across the room as a fireball. She cannot even stretch it out in a line like Firestream or a spread like Burning Hands. It seems useless, so she stops practicing with it. She would rather practice useful spells. Really, she had a natural inclination toward the Uncommon spell Flame Arrow, that lets her safely ignite ammunition into fiery arrows, fiery crossbow bolts, fiery sling stones, etc. She never heard of Flame Arrow and did not recognize the unpracticed effects. She instead trained the energies as a different spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roswynn wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Sure someone else can come up with the idea, but that doesn't mean they can execute it as efficiently as Karzoug could. Imagine that a wizard tries to make Blood Money off of rumors they heard. They end up with a 3rd level spell that takes a full round to cast. It wastes too much magic and takes too long, making the spell effectively useless. Without some idea of how Karzoug managed efficiently weave the magic into such a quick casting, a wizard could easily need to be a legend in their own right before they could hope to mimic Karzoug's magic without any extra information on it.

All reasonable points, I don't take issue with any of them or any flavour based explanation. This is about independent research with no rumours/notes or anything - just saying that the character has an original idea.

Because there is a line between player knowledge and how your character comes by information. Saying that a character cannot research/create a unique spell that a player read in a PF book just because it is already published, but he can research/create a unique spell that the player saw in a computer game creates an artificial distinction that grates.

I guess the primary point is I prefer a hard ban to the artifice of rarity.

I don't get why, though. According to Charon's explanation, you'll probably be able to research a new spell doing a variation of the effects of Blood Money. Your GM will probably tell you, look, considering the circumstances, you won't be able to replicate the best current variant of this spell, but you can get something lesser, that you might still find useful, if you're so inclined. So it's up to you.

Why would you prefer a hard ban instead of choice?

Yeah - shouldn't have posted whilst dinner cooking - totally not my main point.

My main point I really want to make is that of drawing a distinction based on where the player draws their inspiration from. As per what I replied to way back when.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

So if a player has an idea for a spell they want to create and they have the chops to pull this off, we can work together to come up with the rules for the spell (per rules for this when they exist).

If a spell already exists in a book somewhere, and it's marked as "rare" I would require the character to have some idea that the spell actually exists and what it does before they can research it. Spells which have been sealed in some Runelord's vault for several thousand years are spells that a character has no reason to be aware of before cracking said vault.

A character should have just as much reason to be aware of an effect of a spell stuck in a runelords vault and an effect the player saw in a computer game - there is no difference - the character has no reason to be aware of either, but the player is aware of both - I see no reason to treat them differently just because one is published by Paizo and the other by SquareEnix.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Cantriped wrote:
TheFinish wrote:

Wait, I'm confused about spell rarity. How does that work with Sorcerers (who don't really learn spells) and Clerics (who get spells from their gods) and Druids (who get them from being filthy hippies!)?

Like, take Blood Money, which people here have mentioned. It's not just a Wizard spell (which is what Karzoug was), it's also a Magus spell (no problem, Magi learn just like Wizards) a Sorcerer Spell, and a Witch Spell.

How do you justify gating it off to Sorcerer's and Witches? A Sorcerer's magic is an expression of their inner magic, their bloodline.

Mark clarified that such casters can still 'literally find' spells, just like a wizard. So I presume that any arcane spellcaster (wizard, sorcerer, or otherwise) could spend time researching Karzoug's spellbook to master the Unique spell(s) it contains.

So it is gated off for the same reason as for wizards... just because your magic is fueld by something else doesn't mean you don't still have to study, practice, and learn magic. Somebody has to teach you Magic Missile.

Even the PF1 CRB mentions that clerics and druids have texts on magical lore, so presumably so do Sorcerers. These casters just don't need just tomes on hand like Wizards do. Other forms of magic are simpler or easier to internalize than wizardry.
Sorcerers I've always thought of as mastering their spells by rote and practice, not as some weird spontaneous mutation or 'radiation accident'.

That's very anti-intuitive for me, though, and I don't think only for me. I and others have always envisioned sorcerers simply tapping into the magic of their mystic heritage, which expresses as spells, but not learning them from a book or from a teacher. DIY spellcasting. Wizards don't have any particular magic potential, but they're brainy enough to learn spells from books and schools and mentors. Sorcerers don't need that, they just develop new uses for their inborn magic.
If that were the case, wouldn't a...

Because apparently magic tends to follow certain laws. For instance why apprentice wizards all learn the same version of detect magic, or the same version of magic missile? Because magic tends to work along predefined paths. Yes you can alter reality, but there are certain pathways along which you can do it relatively easily, and they're the most used effects, while if you want to do something really unique - casting 3 smaller fireballs instead of 1 big, for instance, or making your magic missile summon bolts of electricity - you'll have to research how to even manage that, and it's not gonna be as "easy".

This is something I read in the PF books. It may be dated information, or it might be that in 2e the devs will have different explanations. Whatever happens I hope the world will still make sense!


Conversely I feel like having Sorcerers simply 'manifest' new spells without any practice or learning is not only unintuitive, but restricts creativity, and flatly ignores the description of the Sorcerer:

Quote:
Emboldened by lives ever threatening to be consumed by their innate powers, these magic-touched souls endlessly indulge in and refine their mysterious abilities, gradually learning how to harness their birthright and coax forth ever greater arcane feats.

Note: Emboldened for emphesis.

Your view-point also ignores the fact that Sorcerers are still casting the same Commom spells as any other member of their Tradition the same way (complete with all of the silly hand-wriggling, pseudo-draconic incantations, and bat guano that entails), and their spells are readily identifible as such. An Arcane Sorcerer's Magic Missile I is basically no different than a Wizard's in practice; either one could (in theory) use a scroll of magic missile scribed by the other.

I think realistically there probably should be more of a divide between the various sub-traditions of spontaneous spellcasters, and their prepared cousins. It really is hard to justify that an Arcane Sorcerer and Wizard, or a Divine Sorcerer and Cleric are actually 'casting the same spells' despite what should logically be vastly different magical principles at work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Charon Onozuka wrote:
Sure someone else can come up with the idea, but that doesn't mean they can execute it as efficiently as Karzoug could. Imagine that a wizard tries to make Blood Money off of rumors they heard. They end up with a 3rd level spell that takes a full round to cast. It wastes too much magic and takes too long, making the spell effectively useless. Without some idea of how Karzoug managed efficiently weave the magic into such a quick casting, a wizard could easily need to be a legend in their own right before they could hope to mimic Karzoug's magic without any extra information on it.

All reasonable points, I don't take issue with any of them or any flavour based explanation. This is about independent research with no rumours/notes or anything - just saying that the character has an original idea.

Because there is a line between player knowledge and how your character comes by information. Saying that a character cannot research/create a unique spell that a player read in a PF book just because it is already published, but he can research/create a unique spell that the player saw in a computer game creates an artificial distinction that grates.

I guess the primary point is I prefer a hard ban to the artifice of rarity.

I don't get why, though. According to Charon's explanation, you'll probably be able to research a new spell doing a variation of the effects of Blood Money. Your GM will probably tell you, look, considering the circumstances, you won't be able to replicate the best current variant of this spell, but you can get something lesser, that you might still find useful, if you're so inclined. So it's up to you.

Why would you prefer a hard ban instead of choice?

Yeah - shouldn't have posted whilst dinner cooking - totally not my main point.

My main point I really want to make is that of drawing a distinction based on where the player draws their inspiration from. As per what I replied to way...

As far as I understand all this stuff about magic - and I really look forward to some explanations in either the playtest document or at least 2nd edition core - it's not that you can't develop a rare spell, you totally can, but you probably won't be able to create it exactly the way better mages than you did. Again, Blood Money - Karzoug was an archmage with a lot of time on his hands and an incredible specialization in alteration, plus a lot of arcane knowledge, tools, and so on. You, on the other hand, had an idea to try an effect that, when you cut yourself, will materialize components from your blood. You don't know of Karzoug's personal grimoire, you couldn't. You think it's your idea (it is, in a way).

But you won't be able to research *Blood Money*. You'll be able to research a lesser version. Because the *best* version of any spell is the one on the lists. So, you not being an archmage with superhuman intelligence etc, your spell will accomplish a similar effect, just not as efficiently.

Or maybe, hey, you got to the point you're *better than Karzoug*. You still won't research Blood Money, you'll actually research a better version. You can access BM only with Karzoug's book (and you'll notice how inefficient it is - from *your* point of view).

The actual spell Blood Money is rare because that version exists only in one book, Karzoug's. Everything else can be very similar, just not identical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Again, I'd be shocked if an optional system like creating new spells made it into a playtest document designed around having controlled parameters.

And once you remove the idea of simply creating your own spells, you get into some really wacky meta considerations for how spells work and why "researching" them doesn't make a lot of sense. Spells in Pathfinder have always been unrealistically precise and uniform. Every 5th level caster's fireball does the same damage over the same dimensions at the same range, minus very modifications that tend to be agnostic of the spell in question anyway. Asking "why can't I research this rare spell effect?" is bad question when we haven't even answered "Why can't I make a fireball that concentrates twice the damage into half the areas?"

There's an analogy for magic in Pathfinder that magic is part of the source code of the universe, and that spell caster are it's hackers. But while this analogy may be accurate for Pathfinder as a world, it definitely isn't true for Pathfinder as a game. See, once you hack into something and start rooting around in the code, you have a lot of freedom with what you can do with it. Hack into the source code of Skyrim and you can turn all the trees in the world to hands, turn dragons into Thomas the Tank Engine, grant yourself immortality, or just about anything else if you put your mind to it long enough.

In Pathfinder, we have a more limited set of pre-defined ways we can alter the world. In effect, spells are old school style cheat codes left into the developer. You input the right button combination and a very specific thing happens. Clerics get these codes directly from their gods. Sorcerers and wizards learn to punch them in themselves, with sorcerers being able to do it more intuitively than wizards. And fighters and other non-casters just spent their time learning to play the game better instead of learning complicated cheat codes. ;)

When your wizard "researches a spell" in actual play he's not actually creating...

I think my secret for creating new spells (perhaps not as a player system but still) is going to be to take uncommon and rare spells and make some minor changes to them. E.g. different damage type and/or save, inflict a different but similar condition, etc. Maybe if I want to make it more subtle take a heightened version of a spell and then sub in something to be slightly nastier to keep it on par. E.g. sickened instead of frightened, or +1d6 damage.


Cantriped wrote:

Conversely I feel like having Sorcerers simply 'manifest' new spells without any practice or learning is not only unintuitive, but restricts creativity, and flatly ignores the description of the Sorcerer:

Quote:
Emboldened by lives ever threatening to be consumed by their innate powers, these magic-touched souls endlessly indulge in and refine their mysterious abilities, gradually learning how to harness their birthright and coax forth ever greater arcane feats.

Note: Emboldened for emphesis.

Your view-point also ignores the fact that Sorcerers are still casting the same Commom spells as any other member of their Tradition the same way (complete with all of the silly hand-wriggling, pseudo-draconic incantations, and bat guano that entails), and their spells are readily identifible as such. An Arcane Sorcerer's Magic Missile I is basically no different than a Wizard's in practice; either one could (in theory) use a scroll of magic missile scribed by the other.

I think realistically there probably should be more of a divide between the various sub-traditions of spontaneous spellcasters, and their prepared cousins. It really is hard to justify that an Arcane Sorcerer and Wizard, or a Divine Sorcerer and Cleric are actually 'casting the same spells' despite what should logically be vastly different magical principles at work.

True. On one hand I can totally understand that being PF based on mechanical abstraction, it's just more convenient to work magic in like this. On the other hand, look, I'm just letting go, because without knowing how magic is actually supposed to work on Golarion and in the PF universe, I obviously can't answer. I'm at the point where I see Kyra can cast fire ray and heal and I say "Cool! That suits her!" and that's the most acute observation I can make at the moment.

So yeah, without further info, I'm outta this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
If that were the case, wouldn't a sorcerer find it equally easy to develop a new-to-them use that nobody else has found (i.e. to research a truly new spell) as to develop a new-to-them use that's well-known? Why do sorcerers have to spend time and gold to research new-to-the-world spells, same as wizards, but not new-to-the-sorcerer spells?
Roswynn wrote:

Because apparently magic tends to follow certain laws. For instance why apprentice wizards all learn the same version of detect magic, or the same version of magic missile? Because magic tends to work along predefined paths. Yes you can alter reality, but there are certain pathways along which you can do it relatively easily, and they're the most used effects, while if you want to do something really unique - casting 3 smaller fireballs instead of 1 big, for instance, or making your magic missile summon bolts of electricity - you'll have to research how to even manage that, and it's not gonna be as "easy".

This is something I read in the PF books. It may be dated information, or it might be that in 2e the devs will have different explanations.

Not sure where you read that, but I can run with it. So a (PF1) sorcerer must research an unknown-to-the-world spell not because it is unknown, but because it is hard. Conversely, they don't need to research the known-to-the-world spells because those are easy. Is that your position? (If not, can you rephrase?)

If so, wizard research should work differently than it does in PF1.

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.

Note that researching an existing (therefore easy) spell and researching an entirely new (therefore hard) spell are treated equivalently. Surely there should be some indication that the latter should be much harder.

Roswynn wrote:
Whatever happens I hope the world will still make sense!

Agreed!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:

Again, I'd be shocked if an optional system like creating new spells made it into a playtest document designed around having controlled parameters.

And once you remove the idea of simply creating your own spells, you get into some really wacky meta considerations for how spells work and why "researching" them doesn't make a lot of sense. Spells in Pathfinder have always been unrealistically precise and uniform. Every 5th level caster's fireball does the same damage over the same dimensions at the same range, minus very modifications that tend to be agnostic of the spell in question anyway. Asking "why can't I research this rare spell effect?" is bad question when we haven't even answered "Why can't I make a fireball that concentrates twice the damage into half the areas?"

There's an analogy for magic in Pathfinder that magic is part of the source code of the universe, and that spell caster are it's hackers. But while this analogy may be accurate for Pathfinder as a world, it definitely isn't true for Pathfinder as a game. See, once you hack into something and start rooting around in the code, you have a lot of freedom with what you can do with it. Hack into the source code of Skyrim and you can turn all the trees in the world to hands, turn dragons into Thomas the Tank Engine, grant yourself immortality, or just about anything else if you put your mind to it long enough.

In Pathfinder, we have a more limited set of pre-defined ways we can alter the world. In effect, spells are old school style cheat codes left into the developer. You input the right button combination and a very specific thing happens. Clerics get these codes directly from their gods. Sorcerers and wizards learn to punch them in themselves, with sorcerers being able to do it more intuitively than wizards. And fighters and other non-casters just spent their time learning to play the game better instead of learning complicated cheat codes. ;)

When your wizard "researches a spell" in actual play he's not actually creating...

You are missing the point, it doesn't need to be custom spells, is about allowing research of spells alredy in the playtest, exactly the same as crafting for magic items already works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
If that were the case, wouldn't a sorcerer find it equally easy to develop a new-to-them use that nobody else has found (i.e. to research a truly new spell) as to develop a new-to-them use that's well-known? Why do sorcerers have to spend time and gold to research new-to-the-world spells, same as wizards, but not new-to-the-sorcerer spells?
Roswynn wrote:

Because apparently magic tends to follow certain laws. For instance why apprentice wizards all learn the same version of detect magic, or the same version of magic missile? Because magic tends to work along predefined paths. Yes you can alter reality, but there are certain pathways along which you can do it relatively easily, and they're the most used effects, while if you want to do something really unique - casting 3 smaller fireballs instead of 1 big, for instance, or making your magic missile summon bolts of electricity - you'll have to research how to even manage that, and it's not gonna be as "easy".

This is something I read in the PF books. It may be dated information, or it might be that in 2e the devs will have different explanations.

Not sure where you read that, but I can run with it. So a (PF1) sorcerer must research an unknown-to-the-world spell not because it is unknown, but because it is hard. Conversely, they don't need to research the known-to-the-world spells because those are easy. Is that your position? (If not, can you rephrase?)

If so, wizard research should work differently than it does in PF1.

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
...

Huh. That definitely confuses me even more.

Again, I intensely hope that in PF2 magic makes at least some sense. I don't care about how unlikely the explanations get, as long as there are explanations.

That said, as I was telling Cantriped, I'm outta here. I *hate* conjecturing about how a fictional element might or might not work, honestly ;)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
dragonhunterq wrote:
A character should have just as much reason to be aware of an effect of a spell stuck in a runelords vault and an effect the player saw in a computer game - there is no difference - the character has no reason to be aware of either, but the player is aware of both - I see no reason to treat them differently just because one is published by Paizo and the other by SquareEnix.

So the way I envision this working is something like:

Player- I want to be able to cast a spell which does [X]
Me- Well, it's a lot easier to just adapt an existing spell, so let me look and see if one exists and get back to you.
[later]
Me- Well, I found this spell, but it's marked rare so it probably shouldn't be something you can learn by sitting at home with books. I will try to work it in somewhere so you at least encounter it so you can use it as a basis for your personal version.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:

I used spell rarity during my 2ed AD&D campaigns. Anything with a person name in it was, at least, uncommon. I had a player change the rarity of a spell from Very rare (know only to the wizard that created it and his apprentices) to uncommon (available in the libraries of all the major temples of Mystra and those of the War Wizards of Cormyr).

:-)

It would be awesome if this meant the return of Rary, Melf, and Leomund! Or, you know, the Golarion equivalent thereof. Because Karzoug's blood money is way cooler than just blood money.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
A character should have just as much reason to be aware of an effect of a spell stuck in a runelords vault and an effect the player saw in a computer game - there is no difference - the character has no reason to be aware of either, but the player is aware of both - I see no reason to treat them differently just because one is published by Paizo and the other by SquareEnix.

So the way I envision this working is something like:

Player- I want to be able to cast a spell which does [X]
Me- Well, it's a lot easier to just adapt an existing spell, so let me look and see if one exists and get back to you.
[later]
Me- Well, I found this spell, but it's marked rare so it probably shouldn't be something you can learn by sitting at home with books. I will try to work it in somewhere so you at least encounter it so you can use it as a basis for your personal version.

Sounds fair :)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

For everyone asking "how does this work with divine spellcasters that have access to any spell on their spell list when they prepare?" the obvious answer of they won't have access to "any" spell anymore is actually correct.

At the banquet where Jason showed some pages, it included the first page of rules text for the Druid (which isn't divine anymore, but...):

Transcription of blurry banquet preview slide, emphasis added:
Primal Spellcasting wrote:
You have the power to cast primal spells using the Cast a Spell activity, and you gain access to the Material Casting, Somatic Casting, and Verbal Casting actions (see Casting Spells on page 195). Because you're a druid, you can usually hold a primal focus (such as holly and mistletoe) as part of your Material Casting and Somatic Casting actions, so you usually don't need spell components or another hand free. At 1st level, you can prepare two 1st-level spells and four cantrips each morning from the common spells on the primal spell list in the book (see page 201), or from other primal spells to which you gain access. Prepared spells remain available to you until you cast them or until you prepare your spells again. The number of spells you can prepare are called your spell slots.

They can prepare from any common primal spell (technically it says "in the book" which means it wouldn't actually include ones published in other books and that's...probably unintentional). I think the use of rarity pretty elegantly solves the "problem" of non-arcane spellcasters getting access to more spells they can prepare from any time a new text is printed (again, assuming that the "in the book" is not intended to always restrict classes to the core rulebook for spells). In practice, it wasn't much of an issue for my groups, but it always seemed a little weird as a flavor thing. It certainly increases the cognitive load of spell preparation, and ends up needing to be balanced around.

Some of the overload came from using digital tools like Hero Lab that would take these spells/feats/items and mush them all into one big list that just got worse and worse to look through over time. If those tools leverage rarity as a means of filtering choices, it can even make things like leveling up faster and easier for players.

I also like "rarity" more than the racial spell mechanic, where fun new tricks like windy escape got gated behind a single race, or lost flavor entirely. Using rarity for racial spells and items (like the example of drow poison) allow the mechanics to better represent a setting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elleth wrote:
I think my secret for creating new spells (perhaps not as a player system but still) is going to be to take uncommon and rare spells and make some minor changes to them. E.g. different damage type and/or save, inflict a different but similar condition, etc. Maybe if I want to make it more subtle take a heightened version of a spell and then sub in something to be slightly nastier to keep it on par. E.g. sickened instead of frightened, or +1d6 damage.

So like, as an example using only what we know at present. This is probably poorly calibrated as I can't compare to most of the spells in the book, but I think it shows how PF2 spells could be quite modular once we have more parts to play with.

Elleth's Stomach Bugs:

Spell 5
Conjuration

Casting [[A]] Somatic Casting, [[A]] Verbal Casting
Range 120 feet; Targets one living creature
You fill the target's belly with squirming, biting vermin that it can feel, the squirming able to be seen beneath the skin. The effect of the spell is based on the outcome of the target's Fortitude saving throw.

Success The target is sickened 1.

Critical Success The target is unaffected.

Failure The target takes 10d6 piercing damage and is sickened 2.

Critical Failure The target takes 15d6 piercing damage and is sickened 4.

Heightened (+1) The damage on a failure increases by 2d6 and on a critical failure by 3d6.

RicoTheBold wrote:

For everyone asking "how does this work with divine spellcasters that have access to any spell on their spell list when they prepare?" the obvious answer of they won't have access to "any" spell anymore is actually correct.

At the banquet where Jason showed some pages, it included the first page of rules text for the Druid...

Thanks Rico! I like this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I definitely prefer clerics/druids and other people who had access to all the spells in PF1 being restricted to only having access to all of the common spells in PF2.

I mean for one thing this means I can reward Clerics with new and interesting spells from loot piles or other rewards the same way I can reward Wizards with new spells or Alchemists with new formulae.

It's also just weird when characters suddenly know six new spells because a new book just came out.


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.

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
OzzyKP wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Charlie Brooks wrote:
If the monsters in the Bestiary get common/uncommon/rare applied to them, I'm going to go back to using the 2-20 encounter tables I used to run with in AD&D and make my setting more sandbox-y.
Supposedly, monsters had this in PF1 for Knowledge checks, we just never told you what they were beyond like goblins being very common in the example.
I love this change. And I love how you guys have identified all the vague, contradictory or troublesome rules from PF1 and found a better solution for them. It is like having a new season of a favorite TV show come out that finally ties up all the loose threads and fills the plot holes that have been nagging you for years. Good work!

This was one of our basic methodologies moving into the new edition, since our mantra was to follow the story, using elements that already existed in the story of PF1 but making them work for us even better.


mmm this sounds like paizo want to erradicate gms in pf2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Quote:
So we went from GM Fiat to an actual rule. The GM can always choose to ignore the rule... but by providing an official rule for this, the GM can go "it's in the rules" and not have to worry about players whining about the GM being arbitrary and unfair.

And why do we need the rule?

If a player is complaining to me about the rules, then I simply tell them that they are not looking for what I provide and they can either sit back and watch everyone else till they figure out what it is I am providing, and take part in that, or they can buzz off and find some other GM.

Juda de Kerioth wrote:
mmm this sounds like paizo want to erradicate gms in pf2.

Come on, guys. The rules are tools for GMs to use. They exist to make it easier for GMs to run games. Sure, a good GM can work without those tools, and great tools don't make a bad GM into a good GM, but that's no reason to dismiss the tool itself just because you don't personally want or need to use it.

If you don't want rules that describe spells/items/whatnot and how players can get them, why are you playing Pathfinder in the first place?

Edit: Actually, I've done a quick 180 on that question. Your views are really helpful, because this is the same perspective other GMs have when faced with some weird spell or item that they don't want. Rarity is a tool that specifically helps them deal with more easily limiting the rules to the ones they want to use. Does that make sense?

301 to 350 of 664 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Paizo Blog: Common Ground All Messageboards