Bypassing restrictions that should not exist to begin with

[Ravingdork]

Take the Bladed Brush feat from Paths of Righteousness, for example. It requires the character to be a worshipper of Shelyn.

Why?

What is preventing my dextrous assassin from kidnapping a worshipper of Shelyn with this specific kind of training, and then forcing her to teach me the fighting style?

As written, that's impossible. Why?

It's fine to say that this fighting style is exclusive to a specific religion, but to hard code it as a prerequisite? Doesn't make logical sense to me why the above scenario should be totally impossible.

The same thing could be said of the druidic language. It makes sense that you can't start with it unless you are a druid, but why couldn't someone pick it up later without multiclassing into druid? The rules say druids fall for teaching others the language, so it must be possible (though extraordinary rare/unlikely), right?

What do you think? Should GMs take a hard stance on such things, or should a player be permitted to do these things in very specific circumstances? Should the game developers put more thought into what they consider "hard" prerequisites/restrictions?

[Jeraa]

Why are all elves proficient in bows and swords?
Why do all dwarves, even those raised by non-dwarves, receive special training against giants?
Why does the arcane archer prestige class only work with bows, and not crossbows?

Because that is just the way some things are.

As for learning Druidic, that is already possible in the rules. Absolutely nothing puts a limit on what languages can be learned by putting ranks into Linguistics. It is even listed in the skill. The notation in parenthesis is only the common speakers of that language (in this case, druids only). That is not a limitation, just the common speakers.

Quote:

Learn a Language: Whenever you put a rank into this skill, you learn to speak and read a new language. Common languages (and their typical speakers) include the following.

Non-druids that know druidic are possible, just aren't typical.

[Gilarius]

Setting specific rules should be just that. If you/your GM and players come up with your own rules for your games, go ahead.

My group use that sort of rule as a starting point for discussing what should be allowed, not as a fixed rule.

Eg almost all of my characters want Lessons of Chaldira, even though halflings don't exist in any game run by our GM (because he hates them).

[Kileanna]

IMHO, any of those examples could be allowed by your GM with a good justification, but only with that. These limitations exist to reflect how restricted this things should be but if you come with a good reason and some good roleplaying for taking one of these restricted features a GM might consider allow you to take them.
Of course, if you are learning the secrets of a determinated community without belonging to it you're probably getting in trouble with those community members.

[Vrog Skyreaver]

Ravingdork wrote:

What is preventing my dextrous assassin from kidnapping a worshipper of Shelyn with this specific kind of training, and then forcing her to teach me the fighting style?

Because the worshipper of Shelyn would rather die than teach your assassin the technique?

Because once someone in the church of Shelyn found out about it, your character wouldn't be long for this world?

Because your character lacks the right mindset to be receptive to learning the technique?

Because there is a supernatural component to the training that requires subservience to Shelyn?

All of these would be good answers to your question.

[PossibleCabbage]

They really shouldn't be hard and fast rules. The point of "only members of this group know this thing" is to make "knowing the thing" more exclusive, a thing that defines members of the group as standing out, and to keep anybody and everybody from taking it purely for the mechanical benefit. If it's like weapon finesse or improved trip, then it's less special. But you don't have to limit it only to the in-group to keep it special.

If you had a character who was a follower of Shelyn and learned a dextrous glaive fighting style, then turned away from the faith for whatever reason, it's not like you'd forget how to fight. So I just read that sort of thing as "think about how to work the relevant fluff into your backstory" rather than just taking it without thinking about where or how you picked it up like any other feat. In theory you could do this with every feat, honestly. I'd be interested to know how wizards acquire "toughness".

[Azten]

Here I was thinking this was a thread about Two-Weapon Grace after Paizo removed the option of two-weapon fighting with Slashing/Fencing Grace.

[Mark Carlson 255]

IMHO, yes.
The main reason why is to prevent every PC eventually looking the same.

But in your home game you can do what you want, have fun. But do not expect your fun to match everyone else all the time.

MDC

[dwayne germaine]

Ravingdork wrote:

Take the Bladed Brush feat from Paths of Righteousness, for example. It requires the character to be a worshipper of Shelyn.

Why?

What is preventing my dextrous assassin from kidnapping a worshipper of Shelyn with this specific kind of training, and then forcing her to teach me the fighting style?

As written, that's impossible. Why?

I find it very easy to imagine reasons that this restriction could exist. Perhaps the ability is divinely inspired and Shelyns touch on her worshipper is all that allows a mortal to fight in this manner. Divine magic is a thing, I find it very easy to accept that the divine powers touch the world in less direct ways than divine spells

Ravingdork wrote:

What do you think? Should GMs take a hard stance on such things, or should a player be permitted to do these things in very specific circumstances? Should the game developers put more thought into what they consider "hard" prerequisites/restrictions?

GMs should continue to rule however they feel is best for their game. To some that will mean being loose with the rules, for others that means conservative interpretations.

I'm a big fan of "hard" prerequisites and restrictions like this. If a GM wants to loosen those restrictions then fine, but I feel that restrictions like this help in maintaining flavor for characters that do qualify

[thejeff]

Even without a divine touch, I like the idea of more restricted abilities like this. Secret styles taught only in some areas or in particular religions have great flavor and have been a thing in the real world. Sure, it's always possible for an outsider to find a way to learn, but remove the restriction and you often wind up losing the flavor and connection entirely. The special ability is no more common among characters with the background than it is elsewhere.

One approach might something like the Adopted trait, that lets you pay a cost to get access to some group's abilities. Flavor it how you will - former worshipper, learned from someone who left, etc.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Ravingdork wrote:

Take the Bladed Brush feat from Paths of Righteousness, for example. It requires the character to be a worshipper of Shelyn.

Why?

What is preventing my dextrous assassin from kidnapping a worshipper of Shelyn with this specific kind of training, and then forcing her to teach me the fighting style?

As written, that's impossible. Why?

1. Not knowing the style exists since you're not a worshipper of Shelyn

2. some things aren not just gained through knowledge but through the blessing of a specific god or goddess. If you leave the worship of Shelyn, you won't forget your training, but without that bit of divine blessing, you may not be able to make use of it.

[Kileanna]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Take the Bladed Brush feat from Paths of Righteousness, for example. It requires the character to be a worshipper of Shelyn.

Why?

What is preventing my dextrous assassin from kidnapping a worshipper of Shelyn with this specific kind of training, and then forcing her to teach me the fighting style?

As written, that's impossible. Why?

1. Not knowing the style exists since you're not a worshipper of Shelyn

2. some things aren not just gained through knowledge but through the blessing of a specific god or goddess. If you leave the worship of Shelyn, you won't forget your training, but without that bit of divine blessing, you may not be able to make use of it.

I still think there are ways a character could get some those features (at least not mystic ones), like a non druid learning druidic. But the question is: would it be more advantage than disadvantage? Because the first time you are seen by a member of that community taking advantage of one of their secrets you're probably having them as enemies to protect their secrets.

If a player insists on taking one of those advantages I'd warn him there will be consequences in game. If he still wants to go on and we can make it fit I might aggree. It will end with some interesting roleplaying or with the player rethinking the whole idea and not wanting to take such restricted features again.

[Chess Pwn]

plus, you can always use the styles that need to you match the alignment but not worship the god to have styles and not worship the god.

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

Kileanna wrote:

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Take the Bladed Brush feat from Paths of Righteousness, for example. It requires the character to be a worshipper of Shelyn.

Why?

What is preventing my dextrous assassin from kidnapping a worshipper of Shelyn with this specific kind of training, and then forcing her to teach me the fighting style?

As written, that's impossible. Why?

1. Not knowing the style exists since you're not a worshipper of Shelyn

2. some things aren not just gained through knowledge but through the blessing of a specific god or goddess. If you leave the worship of Shelyn, you won't forget your training, but without that bit of divine blessing, you may not be able to make use of it.

I still think there are ways a character could get some those features (at least not mystic ones), like a non druid learning druidic. But the question is: would it be more advantage than disadvantage? Because the first time you are seen by a member of that community taking advantage of one of their secrets you're probably having them as enemies to protect their secrets.

If a player insists on taking one of those advantages I'd warn him there will be consequences in game. If he still wants to go on and we can make it fit I might aggree. It will end with some interesting roleplaying or with the player rethinking the whole idea and not wanting to take such restricted features again.

Player might argue that the Church of Shelyn would not take the extreme measures that a druidic order would.

[Kileanna]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Player might argue that the Church of Shelyn would not take the extreme measures that a druidic order would.

Extreme? Maybe not, but I'm sure they'd react anyway. Maybe they don't want to kill him but let's say they think the only way to keep their secret techniques in their church is to make him join the church so they start following him trying to convert him anyway he goes. It could make some interesting roleplaying.

[Samy]

A hard prerequisite only means that the DM must agree that it's a good idea, i.e. you can't force your idea on the DM. If the DM agrees that it makes sense in the context of the story, making an exception for the hard prerequisite is trivial.

Player thinks good idea, DM thinks bad idea, prereq exists -> no go
Player thinks good idea, DM thinks good idea, prereq exists -> can do, just ignore prereq

The prereq basically just means that *both* player *and* DM must be in agreement before skipping the prereq.

[Bigger Club]

In general, it is case by case. It matters if it makes sense. However if it was written by paizo, double for anything golarion related, it likely won't.

Fighting styles or martial arts(including weapons) are a simple matter of bio-mechanics. Unless the feat has a clause that it is supernatural ability, then any hard preq is silly.(Assuming the style uses same basic body as the person trying to learn it)

[N. Jolly]

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

IMHO, yes.

The main reason why is to prevent every PC eventually looking the same.

But in your home game you can do what you want, have fun. But do not expect your fun to match everyone else all the time.

MDC

...it doesn't though. All it does is forces specific flavor onto those characters to look the same, making them look even more similar.

If you want to force all players taking Dervish Dance to worship Sarenrae, you just end up with a ton of people worshiping that deity but not really caring because they had to do it to get the feat. Same with the feat that lets you imbibe something as a swift action; it just says an evil deity has a ton more not really that devoted neutral followers, further condensing the look of players and their characters.

Deity locked stuff in my game isn't locked for these reasons, as I don't place rules on flavor, which includes flavor restrictions. Other people might, but I prefer my players to have more freedom when making their characters.

[Bob Bob Bob]

Because magic. That's pretty much the only way deity-bound feats can make sense. My specific example is always Rovagug.

Breaker of Barrier wrote:

You gain a +2 bonus on Strength checks to break down doors, walls, dams, and other barriers and on combat maneuver checks to bull rush and overrun opponents. You ignore the first 5 points of hardness when you deal damage to doors, walls, dams, and other barriers.

I can break stuff well. I must worship a CE god of destruction.

Merciless Rush wrote:

When you bull rush a creature and your check exceeds the target’s CMD by 5 or more, you deal damage equal to your Strength modifier to that target.

Squash Flat wrote:

Whenever you make a bull rush attack and your combat maneuver check exceeds the target’s CMD by 5 or more, you can attempt to trip the target as part of your bull rush as a free action. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

Hurt or knock down the person you're pushing around. WORSHIP LORD OF DESTRUCTION!

Oath of the Unbound wrote:

You have sworn never to be shackled.

Prerequisites: Worshiper of Rovagug.

Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on combat maneuver checks to break free of a grapple or pin, on Strength checks to burst bonds or to break through doors or walls, and on saving throws to resist spells and effects that would entangle or slow you.

Fluff that covers pretty much every chaotic character? LORD OF DESTRUCTION!

I like using Rovagug simply because most of his feats are martial (and thus fairly mundane) yet are still locked behind "worship the literal god of destruction". Want to damage someone with Bull Rush? Your Sundays will be spent smashing Fabergé eggs and killing people. I think all the other deities have similar feats (martial feats especially, as they're usually based on things people can already do in the real world). So, magic. It's the only way it makes sense.

As for whether it should be a thing... meh. I think leaving it as is is fine. GMs can change it if they want (and it's pretty easy, change "worshipper of <god>" to "trained by Church of <god>" or "member of <school>" or whatever). Game designers can use it to prevent unexpected interactions (by requiring different deities). It gives a reason for followers of a god to actually use their weapon (instead of mechanically better choices). And as for the fluff, knowing something and being able to teach something are two completely different things. Maybe only certain people can teach it. Maybe only with divine inspiration can anyone teach/learn it, which is why only worshippers can do it.

[Gilfalas]

Your entire post is the reason there is a rule 0, a GM and home rules. Change what you don't like.

It is not up to the game creators to tailor their setting to your specific likes and dislikes. They present a setting and rule system that they like (and with the OGL in many cases have to abide by), think is creative and filled with opportunity and flavor.

The biggest problem with your observation is you see the rules in these contentious situations as iron clad and only by having the base rules changed for everyone can you be satisfied that things are working 'right'. Or at least it comes off that way.

Fantasy literature and ancient historic tales are full of examples of languages, skills and magics that only a chosen few know or that are never taught outside a set group, such as the old elven 'bladedancers' who would never teach a non elf the skills no matter what.

That is called flavor. And while yes I am sure that you could try to force someone to teach you something forbidden that assumes that in this fantasy world that specific someone would not rather die than teach you. Which is, in setting, just as unlikely as your assumption they would.

Another question would be what prevents the worshipper of shelyn with this fighting style from not killing you rather than teach you it? Or teaching you it wrong so that it does not work once try to use it in live combat situations? Or from simply letting you kill them during training by plunging themselves on your weapon so they can be free from your captivity and not give away sacred knowledge?

Your example has Shelyn as a prerequisite because the writers were making a Golarion product and thought that would fit the concept and setting and feat.

Not everything is made with the min/maxer in mind. Otherwise the settings would be very dry and boring and homogeneous.

[UnArcaneElection]

It should be possible to bypass deity-bound restrictions, but not easy -- for better or worse, the deities would take measures to ensure that not just anybody could get their hands on their techniques, so that the bar is enough higher for non-worshippers that at least most of the riff-raff won't be able to bypass the restrictions. With enough work, somebody could bypass the restrictions, just like somebody living in a totalitarian nation that has a national firewall could bypass it if they are sufficiently tech-savvy and daring, but most of the citizens won't be able to.

In line with this, D&D 3.x even had Ur-Priests who could get divine spellcasting without worshipping a deity or philosophy. Would love to see a Pathfinder take on this . . . .

[PossibleCabbage]

I guess this depends on whether the GM believes "chugging potions really, really fast is only possible with the divine investiture of Urgathoa" or that "chugging potions unpleasantly fast is something people who don't follow a goddess of gluttony would consider reasonable".

I could see the "You use charisma to fight, somehow" as requiring some sort of approval by Desna, but "You can smash walls real good" probably doesn't require Rovagug's direct approval. I mean, maybe "you are holding a tankard in your offhand, instead of a shield or another weapon, or anything reasonable" is just something people who don't follow Cayden Cailean would consider absurd.

[Mark Carlson 255]

N. Jolly wrote:

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

IMHO, yes.

The main reason why is to prevent every PC eventually looking the same.

But in your home game you can do what you want, have fun. But do not expect your fun to match everyone else all the time.

MDC

...it doesn't though. All it does is forces specific flavor onto those characters to look the same, making them look even more similar.

If you want to force all players taking Dervish Dance to worship Sarenrae, you just end up with a ton of people worshiping that deity but not really caring because they had to do it to get the feat. Same with the feat that lets you imbibe something as a swift action; it just says an evil deity has a ton more not really that devoted neutral followers, further condensing the look of players and their characters.

Deity locked stuff in my game isn't locked for these reasons, as I don't place rules on flavor, which includes flavor restrictions. Other people might, but I prefer my players to have more freedom when making their characters.

Which is why there are different types of players and GM's, and generally they enjoy different styles of gaming. There are a few that can go either way but in general they prefer one way or the other.

I am curious, if the OP or other's who like this are ok with non-adventures taking adventurer feats and abilities or if only adventurer's can ignore the restrictions?

MDC

[Chess Pwn]

I think the issue might be to limit potential overlap of abilities. If I'm a cleric, I have X domains available and Desna fighting. So I need to choose, is desna fighting worth keeping those domains or should I skip desna fighting for domains I like better?

[Pan]

I dont mind the restrictions personally. It gives the game system some character, which I completely understand is not something everyone loves. I'd say going against the system for a player would be something i'd allow with reason as a GM. You could even make some killer stories about it.

[GM Rednal]

As a GM, I appreciate religion-restricted things. They give me a theme and a blueprint for creating NPCs with. XD

[pH unbalanced]

You've taken an example from a Golarion-themed book, which means that this is the standard way things work on Golarion.

For a non-Golarion campaign, this prerequisite is a suggestion at most, which the GM should feel free to change. For a home game set on Golarion, the GM is also free to change this, but should take it as both a suggestion and a commentary on what deity worship means on Golarion.

Flavor prerequisites are always negotiable...except in PFS where they are ironclad.

[Lord Mhoram]

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Take the Bladed Brush feat from Paths of Righteousness, for example. It requires the character to be a worshipper of Shelyn.

Why?

What is preventing my dextrous assassin from kidnapping a worshipper of Shelyn with this specific kind of training, and then forcing her to teach me the fighting style?

As written, that's impossible. Why?

1. Not knowing the style exists since you're not a worshipper of Shelyn

2. some things aren not just gained through knowledge but through the blessing of a specific god or goddess. If you leave the worship of Shelyn, you won't forget your training, but without that bit of divine blessing, you may not be able to make use of it.

Now, a part of my brain is visualizing a worshipper going into temple, meditating for a day, stumbles out, and says in an awed voice "I know kung fu"

The head of the temple looks on and then says "Show me"

[Squiggit]

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:

Because there is a supernatural component to the training that requires subservience to Shelyn?

So should my swashbuckler lose her ability to fight with a glaive in an antimagic field then?

[Mark Carlson 255]

Squiggit wrote:

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:

Because there is a supernatural component to the training that requires subservience to Shelyn?

So should my swashbuckler lose her ability to fight with a glaive in an antimagic field then?

There is more to magic than that which is turned on and off in an anti-magic field.

MDC

[Plausible Pseudonym]

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:

Because there is a supernatural component to the training that requires subservience to Shelyn?

So should my swashbuckler lose her ability to fight with a glaive in an antimagic field then?

There is more to magic than that which is turned on and off in an anti-magic field.

MDC

Yes, artifacts. Is this fighting style an artifact?

[PossibleCabbage]

It's kind of like the adopted/racial heritage feat issue in reverse.

Just like you probably shouldn't have tusks just because you were adopted by half-orcs, or that the blood of dwarven heroes probably shouldn't flow through the veins of people who are not themselves dwarves, you probably shouldn't forget how to fight with a Glaive just because you no longer worship Shelyn.

[pH unbalanced]

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:

Because there is a supernatural component to the training that requires subservience to Shelyn?

So should my swashbuckler lose her ability to fight with a glaive in an antimagic field then?

There is more to magic than that which is turned on and off in an anti-magic field.

MDC

Yes, artifacts. Is this fighting style an artifact?

I mean, I can make stuff up. Maybe the muscle memory involved in using this technique can normally only be developed in zero g (you know, out in the Dark Tapestry where Shelyn originally retrieved her brother and his glaive) but Shelyn is capable of supernaturally implanting this knowledge into her worshippers. But now that they know how, the ability itself is not actually supernatural.

Flavor explanation for a flavor prerequisite.

(And if you like that, you can change the prerequisite to "worshippers of Shelyn...or trained in this fighting style for a year in zero g.")

[Luthorne]

Plausible Pseudonym wrote:

Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:

Because there is a supernatural component to the training that requires subservience to Shelyn?

So should my swashbuckler lose her ability to fight with a glaive in an antimagic field then?

There is more to magic than that which is turned on and off in an anti-magic field.

MDC

Yes, artifacts. Is this fighting style an artifact?

Constructs and undead are artifacts?

[Steve Geddes]

Ravingdork wrote:

What do you think? Should GMs take a hard stance on such things, or should a player be permitted to do these things in very specific circumstances?

It depends on the group. From what I know of your style (presuming the rest of the group is fine with it). I think your DM should treat these prerequisites as no more than "recommendations".

Quote:

Should the game developers put more thought into what they consider "hard" prerequisites/restrictions?

I much, much prefer rule books when they include restrictions like this (mechanical limitations for essentially no more than "flavor reasons").

Paizo are trying to please many groups with diametrically opposed preferences. They could pick a side in the "should flavor impinge on mechanics?" debate but they instead try to provide some material for each group.

Far from needing to "put more thought in", I suspect they've thought about a whole bunch of additional factors you and I have the luxury of ignoring as we discover our own preferences.

[swoosh]

Gilfalas wrote:

Your entire post is the reason there is a rule 0, a GM and home rules. Change what you don't like.

Rule 0 is great, but the game has very strong inertia toward running it as is rather than changing things, so the rules that the designers chose to write can't simply be ignored here either.

Gilfalas wrote:

It is not up to the game creators to tailor their setting to your specific likes and dislikes.

No, but it is a bit of a headscrather when one of those creators says "No you shouldn't be allowed to roleplay this thing".

Gilfalas wrote:

Not everything is made with the min/maxer in mind. Otherwise the settings would be very dry and boring and homogeneous.

This response is a bit confusing.

How exactly would making it so every character who takes a feat doesn't have to have a specific roleplaying characteristics make the game more homogenous? It doesn't make any sense. It's literally the exact opposite of homogenizing a thing.

[thejeff]

swoosh wrote:

How exactly would making it so every character who takes a feat doesn't have to have a specific roleplaying characteristics make the game more homogenous? It doesn't make any sense. It's literally the exact opposite of homogenizing a thing.

Because the thought process isn't "I need this feat therefore I need to worship Shelyn/be from Qadira/whatever" it's "I worship Shelyn/I'm from Qadira, oh hey there's something cool I can do because of that!"

[swoosh]

thejeff wrote:

swoosh wrote:

How exactly would making it so every character who takes a feat doesn't have to have a specific roleplaying characteristics make the game more homogenous? It doesn't make any sense. It's literally the exact opposite of homogenizing a thing.

Because the thought process isn't "I need this feat therefore I need to worship Shelyn/be from Qadira/whatever" it's "I worship Shelyn/I'm from Qadira, oh hey there's something cool I can do because of that!"

But the thought process is the first one for anyone who wants the feat. You can't simply dismiss it or say it doesn't count.

[Steve Geddes]

swoosh wrote:

Gilfalas wrote:

Not everything is made with the min/maxer in mind. Otherwise the settings would be very dry and boring and homogeneous.

This response is a bit confusing.

How exactly would making it so every character who takes a feat doesn't have to have a specific roleplaying characteristics make the game more homogenous? It doesn't make any sense. It's literally the exact opposite of homogenizing a thing.

Gilfalas meant (I think) that all settings would be the same (or at least more similar). The point being that flavor-based mechanical restrictions is one way to emphasise the distinct features of the setting you're describing.

[thejeff]

swoosh wrote:

thejeff wrote:

swoosh wrote:

How exactly would making it so every character who takes a feat doesn't have to have a specific roleplaying characteristics make the game more homogenous? It doesn't make any sense. It's literally the exact opposite of homogenizing a thing.

Because the thought process isn't "I need this feat therefore I need to worship Shelyn/be from Qadira/whatever" it's "I worship Shelyn/I'm from Qadira, oh hey there's something cool I can do because of that!"

But the thought process is the first one for anyone who wants the feat. You can't simply dismiss it or say it doesn't count.

Of course I can. :)

I suspect it's the thought process expected when they write up these kinds of abilities.

More broadly, it means less homogenization within the world, as different regions and different groups have different abilities. Characters would rarely think "I need to be born in Qadira so that I can learn a combat feat."

It does produce more in PCs, since PCs tend to gravitate to specific abilities and then make sure they have the background to justify them.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the issue is that both the "I want to play a character from [wherever], what mechanics reinforce that" and "I want to play a character who does [thing], what mechanics complement that" are both valid ways to look at the game. The issue from the latter approach is that if your idea for a person who uses a specific fighting style starts requiring you to be from certain places, be a certain race, and worship a certain god it sort of seems like the game is making your character for you and not letting you do what you want.

[N. Jolly]

thejeff wrote:

swoosh wrote:

How exactly would making it so every character who takes a feat doesn't have to have a specific roleplaying characteristics make the game more homogenous? It doesn't make any sense. It's literally the exact opposite of homogenizing a thing.

Because the thought process isn't "I need this feat therefore I need to worship Shelyn/be from Qadira/whatever" it's "I worship Shelyn/I'm from Qadira, oh hey there's something cool I can do because of that!"

This would work if the things being locked off weren't so powerful. Swift action liquid imbibing, dex to damage for scimitars, being able to vital strike charge, cha to dex and damage for starknives, and now dex to damage for glaives is all stuff a lot of players would like without needing to have a forced backstory to go along with it. Make the flavor locked stuff less important, and less issues like this will crop up.

[swoosh]

thejeff wrote:

Of course I can. :)

Well you can, but I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to just outright dismiss something like that.

Quote:

More broadly, it means less homogenization within the world, as different regions and different groups have different abilities.

You can do that without restrictions, though. When building a setting you can have people do whatever you want them to. You can say "Fighters from X are more likely to take power attack because they enjoy throwing themselves into combat with abandon" without actually making it a rule that you have to be from a specific region to take power attack.

Quote:

It does produce more in PCs, since PCs tend to gravitate to specific abilities and then make sure they have the background to justify them.

Which is a bigger problem, because NPC generation is inherently more flexible.

andygal wrote:

This a role playing game. You are playing a character not just a block of statistics. If you want to play a block of statistics go play a different game.

Exactly, it's a roleplaying game. So don't hamstring my roleplaying.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the issue is that both the "I want to play a character from [wherever], what mechanics reinforce that" and "I want to play a character who does [thing], what mechanics complement that" are both valid ways to look at the game.

The thing is I think you can accomplish both with sidebars. You can say "this feat is most common among followers of Shelyn" without actually putting a restriction on the feat to play roleplaying police.

Sort of like how the Obedience feats mention which classes are most likely to associate with a given deity without actually saying that Torag hates sorcerers.

[Ravingdork]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The issue from the latter approach is that if your idea for a person who uses a specific fighting style starts requiring you to be from certain places, be a certain race, and worship a certain god it sort of seems like the game is making your character for you and not letting you do what you want.

Well said!

[pH unbalanced]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the issue is that both the "I want to play a character from [wherever], what mechanics reinforce that" and "I want to play a character who does [thing], what mechanics complement that" are both valid ways to look at the game. The issue from the latter approach is that if your idea for a person who uses a specific fighting style starts requiring you to be from certain places, be a certain race, and worship a certain god it sort of seems like the game is making your character for you and not letting you do what you want.

Sure.

But this is from a book of "cool things for people who worship specific deities".

It seems really weird to complain about something being flavor-locked when it is from a book whose sole reason for existing is to create things with deity flavor-locking.

There was never going to be a general feat for Dex-to-damage for glaive users. It came about entirely because they wanted to make something cool for Shelyn-worshippers.

Does that seem overly restrictive now that it exists? Fine. Just convince your GM of that and create away.

[WormysQueue]

N. Jolly wrote:

This would work if the things being locked off weren't so powerful.

Well, maybe that's intentional to encourage roleplaying. Like with the traits (at least at the beginning). Those weren't introduced to give the PCs even more power, they were introduced to give you an incentive to think about your character background.

Add to that that the Player companions are very much setting specific and it suddenly make ssense to bind flavor to those rules because it's exactly what makes them different than just being another book full of generic rules.

It's easy enough to ignore for those players who don't like it, but it's important for those players like me who want to have the setting have an actual expression in the rules material.

Possible Cabbage wrote:

The issue from the latter approach is that if your idea for a person who uses a specific fighting style starts requiring you to be from certain places, be a certain race, and worship a certain god it sort of seems like the game is making your character for you and not letting you do what you want.

Well, to be perfectly honest, when playing in a setting, it's only natural that the setting defines such things. And I'm actually fine by it restricting players' choices insofar as I want the players to play characters that actually fit the setting. And if you feel that this doesn't let you do what you want, then that's a very good sign that you don't want to do that.