| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Except they can. Anyone who runs a home game who does not like that rule can and should simply say: "I am not using that rule" and POOF! it goes away.
All it takes it deciding to do it. That's it. Maybe a little thought before that to see what other impact it may have would be wise but even without doing that at all I know your game won't come crushing down around your ears and all of roleplaying in the cosmos cease for eternity if you make a home rule.
The only time rules are iron clad is in PFS and that is because:
1) That is a setting that the designer's want to make and it is something they have passion about and think has flavor and it is their prerogative to make restrictions in the things they publish for their setting. It sells well enough to strongly indicate that people like what they do.
They have as much right to put whatever limitations into their campaign setting as any home GM does with their own material. They just got smart and PUBLISHED their setting and allow anyone who wants to, to use it and run games in it.
2) Rules in PFD must be the same for all so that anyone who goes anywhere can play there characters in a PFS game and know how the rules and setting works. They won't need to waste time and effort customizing to a particular GM's house rules.
From what I have seen Paizo does not want to publish generic systems. So they put flavor into the crunch where they see fit, and they should. Because of you don't want that it is literally the easiest thing in the world to change.
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".
Except Rule 0 says that you can change anything you want. So they are not saying 'you should not be allowed to roleplay this thing.' They are saying 'we think this is a cool idea and concept and probably should be run this way for balance and/or setting reasons but if not then feel free to ignore it and change it.'
The only limitations that exist in this game are the ones you impose on yourself and your own group.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
But...that's not a good idea. Indeed, in such a situation you have a player who has a concept for a character, and then the system is dictating what that character must be / do. Taken to the extreme, why not just say "only iconics are allowed" because all fighters from this region are like Valeros? It would be like adding further restrictions for various feats. Eg. weapon focus requires that you train, alone, an hour per day. Vital Strike requires you be a chaotic character. Deadly Stroke requires you to be evil, etc. This doesn't encourage roleplay. This doesn't encourage people to make interesting characters. This is the system trying to micromanage its players and that is not the system's job.
Well, to be perfectly honest, when playing in a setting, it's only natural that the setting defines such things.
If we're playing a different setting than Galorion, what all such strange prerequisites can we throw out? Should those feats / features be available at all? Basically my thought at this point is have a single book that's a setting summary for Galorion (or several for the several parts) that illustrates the feats, classes, dieties, etc that would (generally) be represented by characters from various locations, and let GMs (and players) work with that. Don't hide such setting information in gameplay rules. It's nothing but muddy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're playing a different setting than Galorion, what all such strange prerequisites can we throw out? Should those feats / features be available at all? Basically my thought at this point is have a single book that's a setting summary for Galorion (or several for the several parts) that illustrates the feats, classes, dieties, etc that would (generally) be represented by characters from various locations, and let GMs (and players) work with that. Don't hide such setting information in gameplay rules. It's nothing but muddy.
Isn't that what they did? This option was published in the companion line it's "rules for golarion that you can use elsewhere with a little work".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone who runs a home game who does not like that rule can and should simply say: "I am not using that rule" and POOF! it goes away.
But any player who wants a particular feat but also wants to be able to choose their character's religious philosophy isn't running a home game. Their GM is running the game.
And most players don't enjoy badgering the GM for rules changes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I think though, that feats and other options that fundamentally alter how you would go about one's combat style probably should not be gated behind setting/concept gates.
Stuff like Abadar's Divine Fighting Technique letting you make steal and dirty trick maneuvers with a crossbow? Those are good options to have for crossbow users, but they do not present a fundamental change in what a crossbow user does.
But "you can drink potions as a swift action" or "you can finesse a polearm" are sufficiently mechanically warping powers that they either shouldn't exist, or they shouldn't be limited to people who worship the "right" god.
No, I don't think such hard coded requirements are a good idea.
That's why I don't use that kind of restrictive requirement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're playing a different setting than Galorion, what all such strange prerequisites can we throw out? Should those feats / features be available at all? Basically my thought at this point is have a single book that's a setting summary for Galorion (or several for the several parts) that illustrates the feats, classes, dieties, etc that would (generally) be represented by characters from various locations, and let GMs (and players) work with that. Don't hide such setting information in gameplay rules. It's nothing but muddy.Isn't that what they did? This option was published in the companion line it's "rules for golarion that you can use elsewhere with a little work".
Rules & setting fluff should be strictly separate. Just because it's the standard fighting technique of one faction to use a set of feats in no way means another cannot learn the same, especially as the rules are (or should be) an abstraction.
And again, I note that the "concept for a character" here is strictly mechanical. The concept is the feat, then the system dictates some roleplaying fluff to go with it. Which is fine by me.
Coming at it from the other direction, where the concept is more of a rp one, then the problem doesn't arise, since the concept isn't tied to "drinks potions really fast" or whatever.
Then you are asking the system support one band of players at the expense of another. But one cannot claim that their character is RP focused without mechanics to back it up. You can't be a suave member of high society having not taken bluff, diplomacy, sense motive, and having tanked your charisma. You can't say you're the Greataxe wielding slayer of eldritch horrors when you have no combat prowess because you took nothing but skill focus for your feats. I mean, you can, but it doesn't make sense.
Everything in game is mechanics. It's a game, you're kinda stuck with that. Indeed, what actually is a character concept made from an RP direction? Your commitment to "freedom"? Your family loyalty? Your lust for gold? You can do all of that with any class, any feats, any traits. But as soon as you get into "what class & feats do I take?" you are building the aesthetic of your character as it plays. How does it fight? With what weapon (if any)? Or does it do something other than fight (and what)? These, if they can even be considered RP choices (not really any more than the clothes the character chooses to wear), have no reason to be limited for any reason other than game balance, unless the setting calls for it. But if you're designing the system, the setting isn't your job. The setting is separate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cultural appropriation is bad, m'kay?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your actual request here is "Paizo, please stop including mechanics in the setting lines of books."?
no, it's more "remember these rules will be used somewhere other than Golarion" and "book theme doesn't need to be all encompassing" for example look at Heroes of the Streets feat Mud In Your Eye; because the book is urban theme, your character will forget how to throw goop in somethings eye if he leaves the city. wut?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember: If you say 'It's fine because you can houserule it away.' then it's not fine.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're playing a different setting than Galorion, what all such strange prerequisites can we throw out? Should those feats / features be available at all? Basically my thought at this point is have a single book that's a setting summary for Galorion (or several for the several parts) that illustrates the feats, classes, dieties, etc that would (generally) be represented by characters from various locations, and let GMs (and players) work with that. Don't hide such setting information in gameplay rules. It's nothing but muddy.Isn't that what they did? This option was published in the companion line it's "rules for golarion that you can use elsewhere with a little work".Rules & setting fluff should be strictly separate. Just because it's the standard fighting technique of one faction to use a set of feats in no way means another cannot learn the same, especially as the rules are (or should be) an abstraction.
That is a perfectly reasonable design philosophy. You should feel free to play that way. It just doesn't happen to be Paizo's design philosophy. They very emphatically like to design things with rules and flavor intertwined.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember: If you say 'It's fine because you can houserule it away.' then it's not fine.
I would say that it is fine because it is fine. If you choose to house rule it away, that is between you and your table. As it stands, the restrictions work fine for some people. Some people enjoy restrictions and think it adds depth. Others may not.
Remember: If you say 'It's fine because you can houserule it away.' then it's not fine.I would say that it is fine because it is fine. If you choose to house rule it away, that is between you and your table. As it stands, the restrictions work fine for some people. Some people enjoy restrictions and think it adds depth. Others may not.
That is absolutely a valid perspective.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general where do you draw the line when allowing any class to take restricted things?
better question to be asking: "Why is this restricted?"
ie can a fighter get levels in spell casting without multi-classing?
there's an archtype for that.
Can Wizards get fighter only feats?there are like 3 total, most of which even fighters don't take.
Can Wizards get druid only feats?Ironicly the few that do exist involve an animal companion, thus covered by familar feats, or allowing futher spell casts in wild shape, which could be useful to a transmuter who likes being animals, but can be easily circimvented by smart transformation choices.
Do you need to worship a deity or have one empower you to cast divine spells?
Actually the rules are already clear here, you don't need a god to cast divene spells, see every cleric of an ideal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually the rules are already clear here, you don't need a god to cast divene spells, see every cleric of an ideal.
Also- Druids, Oracles, Paladins, Rangers, Shamans, Hunters, and the Adept NPC class are all divine casters without explicit reference to a deity.
Clerics of an ideal are not allowed in default Golarion but there's always druids and oracles and shamans.
edit: and I was ninja'd of course, that's what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post.
The "you can't be a Cleric of a concept" rule on Golarion always struck me as especially odd since that's pretty much explicitly what Oracles are, even though the actual mechanics of the two classes are sufficient to differentiate them.
So you can totally be a divine caster devoted to the power of time, or winter, or metal... you just can't be a *prepared* divine caster devoted to those things.
|
|
The "you can't be a Cleric of a concept" rule on Golarion always struck me as especially odd since that's pretty much explicitly what Oracles are, even though the actual mechanics of the two classes are sufficient to differentiate them.
So you can totally be a divine caster devoted to the power of time, or winter, or metal... you just can't be a *prepared* divine caster devoted to those things.
The default Golarion explanation is that an Oracle's power does come from a Divine being, just not as a consequence of worship.
In default Golarion, Witch's Patron's are also specific beings, but not necessarily full deities.
From the Oracle's point of view they can certainly attribute their power to an ideal, but somewhere there is a specific being fueling it, for reasons of their own.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics worship their source of power. Oracles have power inflicted on them without having to show any respect to its source. They aren't comparable at all to a cleric of a concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The default Golarion explanation is that an Oracle's power does come from a Divine being, just not as a consequence of worship.
In default Golarion, Witch's Patron's are also specific beings, but not necessarily full deities.
From the Oracle's point of view they can certainly attribute their power to an ideal, but somewhere there is a specific being fueling it, for reasons of their own.
But in Golarion you can be a cleric of Azathoth, who is incapable of understanding you exist (or anybody and anything else, for that matter.) You can be a cleric of Yog-Sothoth, who does not yet have access to this universe. How exactly are these folks getting their spells?
I figure that we don't need to drill down on specifics like "where do oracles get their spells" since there's no degree to which they can annoy any particular divine being that would result in them losing access to this power.
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.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!"
Not only that, but I have actually seen thoughts similar to the first in more than one guide . . . .
{. . .} You can't say you're the Greataxe wielding slayer of eldritch horrors when you have no combat prowess because you took nothing but skill focus for your feats. I mean, you can, but it doesn't make sense. {. . .}
That's why, if you're going to go this route, make sure you take Skill Focus (Bluff) first, and keep your ranks in Bluff maxed; preferably take Deceitful second (or also first if you are Human or Half-Elf) . . . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Is that fighting style (su) ?
But in Golarion you can be a cleric of Azathoth, who is incapable of understanding you exist (or anybody and anything else, for that matter.) You can be a cleric of Yog-Sothoth, who does not yet have access to this universe. How exactly are these folks getting their spells?.The default Golarion explanation is that an Oracle's power does come from a Divine being, just not as a consequence of worship.
In default Golarion, Witch's Patron's are also specific beings, but not necessarily full deities.
From the Oracle's point of view they can certainly attribute their power to an ideal, but somewhere there is a specific being fueling it, for reasons of their own.
Say what you will about the tenets of Outer Gods, at least it's an ethos of something that actually exists in some form, somewhere. Not so for concepts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can Wizards get fighter only feats?there are like 3 total, most of which even fighters don't take.
Advanced Weapon Training, Critical Versatility, Disciple of the Sword, Disrupting Shot, Greater Shield Specialization, Martial Mastery, Martial Versatility, Pin Down, Shield Specialization, Sunder Blessing, Weapon Specialization.
Sorry, it was bugging me because I knew there were more than three.
Free form vs Stricter simulation
I personally feel it is a rabbit hole when you start going down the free form way.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people seem to think these restrictions exist only to limitate characters or to force players to roleplay determinated concept.
I think they exist to add some flavor to the game and to make determinated groups have their own special mechanics that reflect their ways of acting and/or their beliefs.
A GM can always reflavor this stuff, completely remove restrictions, or allow a player to roleplay a way of getting these features. It largely depends on how your GM and players want to deal with it.
But I think it's cool that in the official rules this restrictions exist because, as I said, they add a lot of flavor to the setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This debate is the same reflavoring argument I've seen countless times. Is it OK to use the Samurai class but have my character resemble a classic Arthurian knight? Is it OK for me to say I have a wolf companion but use the stats for the tiger companion? Is it OK for me to use the stats of a rapier but say I'm using an estoc?
Yeah except its Raving dork who started the thread and It seems that a lot of his posts are more for principle then application. I could be wrong but that is how I read it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with these restrictions and I have a character who could have used some to get mechanical improvements (greatsword wielding fighter that i created before Gorum’s Swordsmanship was introduced to the game, as my character is not a gorumite and he's not CN he can't take that feat although it could be very useful for him, but as the feat doesn't fit the character's back story I don't feel like it's such a big deal as to ask for special dispensation with the rules).
These limitations exist to give character to some faiths/races in the setting. I get how some people want to do anything that suits their fancy and believe this "freedom" to be good for the game. In my opinion it's the exact opposite of good and leads to watering down settings usually because some people want something and hate the fact they can't get it according to the rules, so they embark on a crusade to change the rules themselves.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
These limitations exist to give character to some faiths/races in the setting.
Then the limitations are terrible at their job. Feats like "Dex to Damage with scimitars", "can drink things faster" and "can convince enemies to loosen ropes" are pretty bland. One enables certain character concepts (namely, the "dexterous warrior" archetype), the next is just a bland powerup, and the last is an ill concieved joke. None of them feel like they are an exhibition of a faith or a race (IMO, but I guarentee I am not alone here). If that is the goal, then no wonder people hate them doing it, because they suck at it, and they should stop doing it because all they are achieving is subtly damaging their product.
I get how some people want to do anything that suits their fancy and believe this "freedom" to be good for the game.
Strawman called, he wanted you to know that you should knock it off.
If you want a somewhat more reasonable position to attack, how about "I get that some people want the rules to facilitate as many reasonable character concepts as possible and take a negative view of any design decisions that hinder this without a good payoff (which there rarely is, in this case)".
In my opinion it's the exact opposite of good and leads to watering down settings usually...Golarion isn't exactly an amazingly interesting and unique setting. Some of the little details are interesting, but looking at the broad strokes it is pretty much "fantasy kitchen sink setting no. 329 v0.146". It has already been watered down pretty aggressively. Now, that isn't a completely bad thing, because there are tradeoffs to be made. Narrower and less "kitchen sink"ish settings don't play well with general purpose source books, so a watered down setting has a reason to exist. However, that doesn't change the fact that Golarion as a whole doesn't have a huge amount of flavor. Bolting "must worship this particular god who has some sort of association to grace" to a feat doesn't improve things.
because some people want something and hate the fact they can't get it according to the rules,......and there isn't a reasonable justification for it...
so they embark on a crusade to change the rules themselves.
...you call this a crusade? Yeah, no. Cut out the hyperbole. It doesn't help at all.
*Funnily enough, if there was a feat that functioned identically to Dervish Dancer but worked with all finnessable weapons, and Dervish Dancer just let you do the same thing with a scimitar, then it would actually be pretty reasonable, because you are killing off very few character concepts with your race/religion restrictions. It is the fact that a whole pile of character concepts are gated behind one feat with a religion prerequisite that makes it really bad design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would not start throwing the "bad design" around.
The design goal is probably not what you are judging it by.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
These limitations exist to give character to some faiths/races in the setting.Then the limitations are terrible at their job. Feats like "Dex to Damage with scimitars", "can drink things faster" and "can convince enemies to loosen ropes" are pretty bland. One enables certain character concepts (namely, the "dexterous warrior" archetype), the next is just a bland powerup, and the last is an ill concieved joke. None of them feel like they are an exhibition of a faith or a race (IMO, but I guarentee I am not alone here). If that is the goal, then no wonder people hate them doing it, because they suck at it, and they should stop doing it because all they are achieving is subtly damaging their product.
Are they? Or are the mechanical benefits they provide good enough that SOME people want them but don't want to bother with the required background building?
Your argument seems to be that "everyone should be able to do such things". Unfortunately the rules say it's not so.
According to the setting worshipping a certain deity and gaining access to certain techinques makes you better at doing some things.
Now, as a GM I would allow people not of a certain faith to gain access to some of these techniques IF there was a story development about it (say the assassin character mentioned above, IN GAME manages to kidnap a member of the Shelynite faith who knows these techniques and THROUGH PLAY is able to get him/her to teach said techniques), but I would not allow a PC to gain those powers by ignoring their limitations. Personally I feel this improves the game and makes players play the game in order to get what they want instead of taking it for granted and demand the GM to provide it.
Strawman called, he wanted you to know that you should knock it off.
If you want a somewhat more reasonable position to attack, how about "I get that some people want the rules to facilitate as many reasonable character concepts as possible and take a negative view of any design decisions that hinder this without a good payoff (which there rarely is, in this case)".
There was no strawman argument I made. As I read things on these messageboards a lot of people ask for "more freedom" and require for "less limitations". In my opinion they forget limitations define a thing's physiognomy. Limits are needed as they define the nature of things.
Also please define "reasonable character concepts", because the fact the setting has some techniques belonging to some faith/race does NOT invalidate any character concepts, it just makes characters belonging to those faiths/races a bit more effective at doing something (usually in a really limited field).Golarion isn't exactly an amazingly interesting and unique setting. Some of the little details are interesting, but looking at the broad strokes it is pretty much "fantasy kitchen sink setting no. 329 v0.146". It has already been watered down pretty aggressively. Now, that isn't a completely bad thing, because there are tradeoffs to be made. Narrower and less "kitchen sink"ish settings don't play well with general purpose source books, so a watered down setting has a reason to exist. However, that doesn't change the fact that Golarion as a whole doesn't have a huge amount of flavor. Bolting "must worship this particular god who has some sort of association to grace" to a feat doesn't improve things.
In your opinion. I for one like Golarion and I'd like for the game designers to strenghten its character and different flavours both by building more immersive backgrounds and giving them appropriate mechanical workings.
...and there isn't a reasonable justification for it...
This whole discussion has people disagreeing with your notion that there isn't any "reasonable justification" for these rules.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm perfectly okay with deity specific options.
There are actually quite a few things restricted in that way. But you only hear complaining about it when it's a particularly strong option and people don't want to have to take that helping of flavor it comes it with.
I'm unsympathetic to this problem.