I am curious. I am sure this has probably been asked before.
As a GM for your games, what materiel do you consider "core", and what materiel do you consider "optional" (needs GM permission to be admitted), and is there any materiel you would outright ban?
For example, I would consider Pathfinder Core Rule book, to be well core materiel.
The Advanced Players guide, Ultimate Magic, and Ultimate Combat, i would consider optional materiel.
I would probably allow the six base classes of the APG in with out much scrutiny, but I would want to at least read over what players want to use, in terms of a feat spell etc in the book before giving it the green light.
I would consider the Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, a little further out on a limb or "more optional", and I would want to read over the materiel carefully and ask the player about his character concept, and what is the "game mechanic" he is thinking of exploring before allowing that materiel in.
For reasons of personal taste i would ban fire arm materiel, including gunslingers (unless I am running a 3 musketeers / Pirates of the Carribean type campaign), and depending on the parameters of a specific home game I might restrict player's access to the monk, Samurai, and Ninja classes.
What are your thoughts and opinions?
Thanks
Anything within the pathfinder players book is considered core. You can expect to play or use anything from it without restriction (although some GMs make an exception). Anytying outside of that book is optional and it varies from GM to GM
For me I allow for Core, UM, UC, and the APG but out of those books I dont allow for the Words of power system and unless doing a specific campaign where they fit I dont allow gunslingers either. Occasionally i will grant a race from the bestiary books if the player has a cool idea
@ LazarX
Thanks. :) I really didn't take much time to do a comparison. This helps me change my opinion. As for UM and UC, beyond the Magus class, I probably wouldnt want them. Not into the Samurais, Ninjas, and Gunslingers enough to warrant a purchase.
@gamer-printer
That's kind of my point. I don't want future splat classes to replace any other classes as a "better version of" sort of thing.
In any case, I would allow the Inquisitor PC at the table, it's an interesting class. I'll pass on the Summoner though, it reminds me of FF too much. It's a flavor thing mostly.
Eh, the Inquisitor is a combat-focused Bard. I don't believe them to be better than the Ranger.
I consider anything put out by Paizo as core in my campaign. I also encourage the use of third party products as well (especially Super Genius And Rite Publishing materials). I like to have lots of options and variety and so do my players.
@Finn K: Here's an in-game reason, the character had worked with those weapons before (technically most PCs have done some degree of shenanigans before becoming PCs), suddenly they had an epiphany that allows them to use it, and they suddenly realized that weapon is awesome as a part of that epiphany. You see how this works? Pretty much any feat can be explained away with "I just thought of something", because PCs "just think of something" all the time, in fact it's pretty much why they are PCs, they're allowed to have epiphanies.
The other big explanation is "I just got better at it."
Something like "a notable expertise" is closer to getting weapon focus and weapon spec with a particular weapon, just being proficient in something is no big deal. The "explain everything" is a logical conclusion to "well how did you think to do that" with any given situation.
PCs are weird, let them be weird, if it's not mechanically equal to the others, so be it, run them against intelligent opponents, have them figure out that "that one's the dangerous/insignificant one", and have them act accordingly.
It's a rare PC that gets a full backstory, for a reason, and that is partially to justify any of their future decisions. Also, because it's really easy to write yourself into a corner, like my GM has for my fighter in my Sunday group. I've only got 2 or 3 options, only one of them fits the character, and that stands a good chance of getting him killed.
The Razortusk+Pass for human clearly is beyond the bounds of what we are talking about, as we are discussing what you are taking at later levels, not just first. This is about things you gain later on and the aforementioned combination is something that should be shut down by default. Even that can be chalked up to a birth defect, mutation, blessing of a god, or something akin to the crazy tentacle arms you can get as a sorcerer.
"Well...."
The point is, in a setting as loose as Pathfinder is in a lot of ways, you can make up an excuse for everything when it comes to character creation, and because of that the player shouldn't have to make up any excuses.
|
It's a rare PC that gets a full backstory, for a reason, and that is partially to justify any of their future decisions. Also, because it's really easy to write yourself into a corner, like my GM has for my fighter in my Sunday group. I've only got 2 or 3 options, only one of them fits the character, and that stands a good chance of getting him killed.
I see that this is clearly a point that you and I are not going to be reaching any kind of agreement on.
In the groups I'm currently playing in... most PCs have a pretty thorough back-story before we start off on a new campaign. Any PCs being introduced during the campaign usually have a pretty solid and thorough back-story created by the player (with GM cooperation and input) before the PC joins the group. It's something some groups do (almost automatically as an integral part of the character creation process), although evidently not the ones you usually play with. Your example is not sufficiently convincing to me to change my view... I'd expect that a PC who had done all of those divergent things, should be able to trace as much of a sketch of his/her background covering all that as you just did in writing that paragraph covering a little bit of your own background (and once the player's done so, it's reasonable and plausible, because there are plenty of real people who have spread their attentions and efforts equally widely in life). An in-play example from one of my characters in a game someone else is running: my character is going to pick up exotic weapon proficiency: spiked chain next level. She's already got a spiked chain stuffed away in her pack, and although I don't use it in battle, the fact that she's messing around, training with it, in her spare time has been noted and commented on in-play. That's SOP for me, for how I play my characters.
However, to each their own-- you enjoy your style of game, I'll enjoy mine. None of my expectations have pissed off the people I game with so far, so evidently I'm not taking this sort of idea too far for my players. Helps that all of us have played other role-playing games, particularly skill and ability-based games, where "learning by doing" is more a part of the game-- maybe that's why I (and enough of the people I game with) are okay with such expectations in PF.
If the book is published by Paizo, then I'll allow it. unless it has anything to do with the Summoner class, that thing is not allowed near my table.
@Finn K: Most of my characters have a little backstory, nothing significant, like my current inquisitor/ninja comes from a family of monster hunters, the family was supposedly destroyed just before the campaign started, of course he doesn't believe that, because it's more likely that they went underground, largely faking their deaths.
You will gleefully take a level 1 sorcerer who has claws (literally) as more believable than a "human" who just has gnashy teeth? I find that very hypocritical, because all of the dragon bloodlines give you claws.
|
|
For me, "core" is anything that fits the campaign I am running at the time. So for my current campaign that means no gnomes, gunslingers, ninja, or samurais. Anything else is allowable that is not specifically designated as an alternate system. I am also using traits and, for a more epic feel, hero points. For my next campaign "core" may change depending on what type of campaign I decide to run.
For me, "core" is anything that fits the campaign I am running at the time. So for my current campaign that means no gnomes, gunslingers, ninja, or samurais. Anything else is allowable that is not specifically designated as an alternate system. I am also using traits and, for a more epic feel, hero points. For my next campaign "core" may change depending on what type of campaign I decide to run.
If there are no gnomes, how is my half-orc barbarian supposed to fight?! Halflings?!
He said "how" not "who", presumably he has gnome-chucks.
|
|
You will gleefully take a level 1 sorcerer who has claws (literally) as more believable than a "human" who just has gnashy teeth? I find that very hypocritical, because all of the dragon bloodlines give you claws.
In the context of the game, yes (ignoring the hypocritical stab-- off-target). The "human" with gnashy teeth obviously isn't fully human. The Sorcerer with the claws has a dragon ancestor somewhere back in the past and is living proof that some dragons will f*** anything... the claws are just one o' those things that goes with that (or it's just a nifty spell).
You and I are not going to find agreement on this one (think I said that before). Pretty sure we've flogged the hide off the dead horse now.
|
@OP: The CRB is core for games I run.
All other Paizo material is conditionally available -- as a GM I want to discourage material that doesn't conform to the campaign I am running, like Summoners and Gunslingers.
3PP material is possible if it passes this GM's review.
And 3.5 material is possible if PF has no equivalent or better, *and* it isn't broken.
|
If our group if it's published by Piazo and not specifically cited as an optional rule it's ok. This includes the Summoner. It probably helps that it's a small group and pretty melee centric. If something happens to be powerful the encounters just get scaled and it works well for everyone.
Last campaign I played a scary Alchemist and while I was doing plenty of damage I went down plenty as well. Turns out getting bigger, scarier and stronger draws LOTS of attention ;-)
Right now I'm brainstorming a Synthesist Summoner (Aasimar who "forces" demons to do good) and I was told as long as I have everything organized at the table it won't be an issue. That means having 2 character sheets and stats ready for the summons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Finn K
I guess I have trouble with the point of view that feats need to have story and character themes behind them to be "valid" choices.
For instance, If my character is a clumsy Gnomish Basket Weaver I can create my character as a rogue. I would of course take craft baskets to make this complete (and I doubt I'd put more than a point or two, as few campaigns need epic basket weaving).
The sneak attack is entirely accidental, my stealth is happenstance, and everything about my character could be very JAR JAR Binks. But I would take feats that provide a mechanical benefit because I want my terribly unheroic character to be epic and effective.
Literature is full of characters of this nature, and the feats on the page only tell you what the character can do, not how they do it.
Certainyl many players have a powergaming, munchkinizing streak to them, but realistically, whether they are combat feats or skill feats or any kind of feat, feats and character options don't tell a person how their character is played. It's just that some people try to gain unfair advantage. It has very little to do with "roleplaying" IMO.
This reminds me of the clone wars episode where Jar Jar actually single handedly rescues senator Padme from the clutches of some bad guys with what amounted to a lot of dumb luck, some clumsily executed (yet bravely heroic) actions, accidentally being mistaken as a Jedi and then rolling with it, and then sicking a giant monster on the badguys, somewhat on accident.
That gnome alchemist with point blank shot, dual wielding alchemist fires at 1d6+5 damage, and chucking them left and right? Could easily be a half-senile gnome, who is thematically rummaging threw his bags and throwing stuff. "Now where is that vial!?" *tosses random junk and goblins explode* "I know I left my cooking list in here somewhere!?" *orcs burn to cinders* "How ever will I remember to pick up my...oh, my word...I...I found it!" *pulls out a bomb wrapped in a shopping list* "Oh no, the shopping list is smudged. Fiddlesticks." *tosses bomb over his shoulder, which happens to land right in the middle of a bunch of tower-shield wielding orcs. Orcs: "Uh-oh!"
|
|
If our group if it's published by Piazo and not specifically cited as an optional rule it's ok.Hmmm.... anything published by Piazo-- not sure I've ever heard of anything published by that company, never even heard of the company in fact.
But, what about game books published by Paizo?
:D
Yeah... that's what i get for posting right before bed...;)
|
I chose Golarion to be my fantasy world of choice, so for any games I run, I consider core to be;
For players: all Pathfinder RPG hardcovers, The Pathfinder Campaign Setting harcover, all Pathfinder Companions. When I run an Adventure Path, I also consider the materials in that AP to be Core as well.
For me as the GM: the entire Paizo published catalogue if it can be justified/required/enhances the adventure.
3rd Party materials and whatnot I consider by approval... not because I don't like them, but because I prefer to think of them as unique, or exceptionally rare to the world and don't want to overdo it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Core, APG, UM, UC, although in practice I allow essentially everything from Paizo. PF Psionics is okay too. I somehow tend to end up with players who aren't really the sort to ask for other 3PP material, but I guess I'd provisionally allow it in most cases, provided that it's publicly available. (I don't want players to feel like they should be buying 3PP books for extra power. I don't think most people would feel that way, but it's more convenient if it's not there at all.)
---
I've played a lot of 3.5/PF, and I've rarely run into issues with players needing to justify why they're taking the character options they're taking. In most cases, it just makes sense - this character now has Weapon Focus because he fights with his weapon all the dang time. If anything, it's least a problem for optimizers, because optimizers A) are more likely to have character option trajectories planned out ahead of time, and are thus more likely to craft a personality for their character such that it's no surprise when the character takes a level of Inquisitor at 4th or whatever, and B) are more likely to build coherent characters to begin with. The players who strain credulity with their mechanical choices are the low-system-mastery whim-driven players, who think that while they've been playing a sorcerer for four levels now, they happened to see a cool picture of a monk, and so taking a level of monk now seems like a lot of fun, even though they've never considered it before.
|
|
@Finn K
I guess I have trouble with the point of view that feats need to have story and character themes behind them to be "valid" choices.
For instance, If my character is a clumsy Gnomish Basket Weaver I can create my character as a rogue. I would of course take craft baskets to make this complete (and I doubt I'd put more than a point or two, as few campaigns need epic basket weaving).
The sneak attack is entirely accidental, my stealth is happenstance, and everything about my character could be very JAR JAR Binks. But I would take feats that provide a mechanical benefit because I want my terribly unheroic character to be epic and effective.
Literature is full of characters of this nature, and the feats on the page only tell you what the character can do, not how they do it.
Certainyl many players have a powergaming, munchkinizing streak to them, but realistically, whether they are combat feats or skill feats or any kind of feat, feats and character options don't tell a person how their character is played. It's just that some people try to gain unfair advantage. It has very little to do with "roleplaying" IMO.
This reminds me of the clone wars episode where Jar Jar actually single handedly rescues senator Padme from the clutches of some bad guys with what amounted to a lot of dumb luck, some clumsily executed (yet bravely heroic) actions, accidentally being mistaken as a Jedi and then rolling with it, and then sicking a giant monster on the badguys, somewhat on accident.
That gnome alchemist with point blank shot, dual wielding alchemist fires at 1d6+5 damage, and chucking them left and right? Could easily be a half-senile gnome, who is thematically rummaging threw his bags and throwing stuff. "Now where is that vial!?" *tosses random junk and goblins explode* "I know I left my cooking list in here somewhere!?" *orcs burn to cinders* "How ever will I remember to pick up my...oh, my word...I...I found it!" *pulls out a bomb wrapped in a shopping list*...
Not that it matters, since it appears that I am a minority of one on this issue in Paizo's boards, but I thought Jar Jar Binks was quite possibly the worst character in an otherwise good movie I've ever seen. And, I hate the archetype of the utterly idiotic clutz who somehow always manages to be effective, in spite of their total stupidity and carelessness (and maybe senility as well). Now, the person who pretends to be careless and incompetent, but actually does know what he/she is doing and is a good at pulling off the act-- more palatable to me; but I refuse to buy into the "oxygen thief becomes a hero in spite of himself" myth.
For my group core is the CRB and APG (with gm permission). We generally don't use classes from the APG although archetypes are often used. Recently in order to spice things up a bit I said words of power and all spells from UM were fair game.
It's pretty vanilla but I think we make up for it with good role-playing and lots of trash talking.
All the standalone paizo books I would consider core (PG, APG, UC, UM). Sometimes player's ask me about traits and whatnot from adventure paths, and those are a case by case basis.
I'm far more limiting on spell selection, but that's a case by case basis rather than all spells from a given book. (except back in 3.5 and FR cantrips. those were all banned)
|
I would consider core material to be anything Paizo published. However, in my game I also allow any third part content that I own and have vetted. I don't want any 3.5 material in my game or anything from a 3PP that I haven't looked over. With that said, I'm usually the person introducing my group to new content and options. To about half of them, Pathfinder is whatever I say it is.
In the game I play in, all the Paizo books are allowed. Personally I find one of the strengths of PF is that Paizo has managed to add new books which increase the options without having appreciable power creep. This is a substantial change compared to 3.5 in which power creep was endemic with the release of new books.