If I give the list of feats of a faith-based ranger combat style, how easy would it be to link the combat style to the corresponding deity?I could probably guess most of them, but even then the Ranger Deity Combat Styles do not have Deity specific feats in them I believe.
================================
a) Disengaging Feint, Improved Feint, Ranged Feint, and Two-Weapon Feint. At 6th level, he adds Greater Feint and Misdirection Tactics to the list. At 10th level, he adds Disengaging Shot and Passing Trickb) Agile Maneuvers, Improved Dirty Trick, Improved Feint, and Weapon Finesse. At 6th level, he adds Greater Feint and Quick Dirty Trick to the list. At 10th level, he adds Critical Focus and Disengaging Flourish
c) Combat Expertise, Dodge, Improved Dirty Trick, and Improved Steal. At 6th level, he adds Greater Dirty Trick and Greater Steal to the list. At 10th level, he adds Quick Dirty Trick and Quick Steal
=================================
So, without looking at the book, how easy is to tell the two deity based styles from the examples above?
|
If I give the list of feats of a faith-based ranger combat style, how easy would it be to link the combat style to the corresponding deity?I could probably guess most of them, but even then the Ranger Deity Combat Styles do not have Deity specific feats in them I believe.================================
a) Disengaging Feint, Improved Feint, Ranged Feint, and Two-Weapon Feint. At 6th level, he adds Greater Feint and Misdirection Tactics to the list. At 10th level, he adds Disengaging Shot and Passing Trickb) Agile Maneuvers, Improved Dirty Trick, Improved Feint, and Weapon Finesse. At 6th level, he adds Greater Feint and Quick Dirty Trick to the list. At 10th level, he adds Critical Focus and Disengaging Flourish
c) Combat Expertise, Dodge, Improved Dirty Trick, and Improved Steal. At 6th level, he adds Greater Dirty Trick and Greater Steal to the list. At 10th level, he adds Quick Dirty Trick and Quick Steal
=================================So, without looking at the book, how easy is to tell the two deity based styles from the examples above?
*scratches head*
a) I'll guess either Erastil or Desna.
b) Cayden Cailen?
c) Norgober?
I've honestly never looked at the Deity Combat styles before now, so I'm probably wrong.
I just wish those feats had a bit of Divine ooph in them.
I feel like this is tricky here because some people very much prefer their martial characters to not be overtly supernatural, so if your divine fighting technique made your scimitar burst into flames that might discourage your Sarenrite Swashbuckler from taking that feat because they have no mechanism through which to cause things to burst into flame and it's not like they're getting spells from their deity or anything.
For a lot of the simpler ones you can just view them as "your faith and fervor pushes you to train and fight harder, allowing you to master a difficult technique" and I like that. This explains why you wouldn't forget how to do shoot people's pouches off if you fall out with Abadar, but you're probably not teaching it to anybody who isn't willing to put in the work (there are, after all, easier ways to steal.)
There should probably be some "overtly supernatural" divinely sponsored feats, but they should probably require spellcasting in class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know but with any type of just trained technique there is no reason that a wayward follower could not teach it. Easy to find that guy not at all, but if he exist it's the same as a spell in a runelords spellbook. Once it gets learned by someone else there is a chance of it being disseminated to the masses.
|
|
I know but with any type of just trained technique there is no reason that a wayward follower could not teach it. Easy to find that guy not at all, but if he exist it's the same as a spell in a runelords spellbook. Once it gets learned by someone else there is a chance of it being disseminated to the masses.
Point, but the ability is effectively beamed into your head and body through your worship of your deity, just like the Cleric loses spells if they forsake their deity a Fighter would lose their gift from their deity, even if said gift is not supernatural.
Note though that I am all for adding more supernatural into said martial abilities from Deities.
*goes to check the styles*
Okay, 1, did not know Besmara had a fighting Style.
2, those other two aren't Deity combat styles so I don't see what the point of that was.
The point was that you couldn't tell. In fact you gave quite reasonably answers for all of them, but still, you couldn't tell, [EDIT] due to the arbitrariness in the nature of the restriction.
So, there is no reasons that one of them is locked and the others do not. You could use them perfectly fine to represent a flavorful ranger devoted to those deities you choose. The restriction on besmara list adds nothing, as her list could work perfectly fine for a devoted to cayden caylen.
|
|
*goes to check the styles*
Okay, 1, did not know Besmara had a fighting Style.
2, those other two aren't Deity combat styles so I don't see what the point of that was.
The point was that you couldn't tell. In fact you gave quite reasonably answers for all of them, but still, you couldn't tell.
So, there is no reasons that one of them is locked to one deity. You could use them perfectly fine to represent a flavorful ranger devoted to those deities. The restriction on besmara list adds nothing, as they could work perfectly fine for a devoted to cayden caylen.
????
None of those feats are deity restricted, anyone can take them. As for those groupings, they're Ranger combat styles. That's a Ranger thing, not a deity thing.
I know but with any type of just trained technique there is no reason that a wayward follower could not teach it. Easy to find that guy not at all, but if he exist it's the same as a spell in a runelords spellbook. Once it gets learned by someone else there is a chance of it being disseminated to the masses.
I feel like there's an aspect with the divine fighting styles that you don't get with blood money & co. is that if you're not already a follower of Desna, you probably don't think all that highly of the Starknife as a weapon so probably aren't inclined to go find a teacher. Externally, we know that "Desna's Shooting Star" is perhaps the single most problematic of all the divine fighting styles, but within the diagesis most non-Desnans probably see the Starknife as a bizarre, impractical weapon so wouldn't be particularly inclined to master it.
I mean, we all know that the Composite Longbow puts the Crossbow to shame, so who else would want to master Abadar's Crossbow than someone already in the flock of the Wealthy Father?
It's even easier to justify "these things are slow to disseminate" than it is with particularly strong spells. That being said, if a player showed up with a really good story about how they learned this secret technique from a wayward ex-follower of a deity, I'd be inclined to just let them have it. Probably "pick a deity, you count as a follower of that deity for all prerequisites" is reasonable at the price of a trait (for people who were raised in a church/cult but later left it.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*goes to check the styles*
Okay, 1, did not know Besmara had a fighting Style.
2, those other two aren't Deity combat styles so I don't see what the point of that was.
The point was that you couldn't tell. In fact you gave quite reasonably answers for all of them, but still, you couldn't tell.
So, there is no reasons that one of them is locked to one deity. You could use them perfectly fine to represent a flavorful ranger devoted to those deities. The restriction on besmara list adds nothing, as they could work perfectly fine for a devoted to cayden caylen.
????
None of those feats are deity restricted, anyone can take them. As for those groupings, they're Ranger combat styles. That's a Ranger thing, not a deity thing.
From inner sea combat
"The most prominent gods of the Inner Sea region are detailed
on pages 218–227 of The Inner Sea World Guide. Rangers who
worship them may take the following fighting styles."
I like that trait idea.
Also though its not just the divine fighiting style feats. It's things like Bladed brush or butterfly's Sting that might draw practitioners in.
I mean Intrepid Rescuer is a damn good feat that anyone devoted to protecting their allies might want.
|
|
*goes to check the styles*
Okay, 1, did not know Besmara had a fighting Style.
2, those other two aren't Deity combat styles so I don't see what the point of that was.
The point was that you couldn't tell. In fact you gave quite reasonably answers for all of them, but still, you couldn't tell.
So, there is no reasons that one of them is locked to one deity. You could use them perfectly fine to represent a flavorful ranger devoted to those deities. The restriction on besmara list adds nothing, as they could work perfectly fine for a devoted to cayden caylen.
????
None of those feats are deity restricted, anyone can take them. As for those groupings, they're Ranger combat styles. That's a Ranger thing, not a deity thing.
From inner sea combat
"The most prominent gods of the Inner Sea region are detailed
on pages 218–227 of The Inner Sea World Guide. Rangers who
worship them may take the following fighting styles."
Yes, a Ranger has to worship that specific deity to get access to that style, but none of those feats themselves are deity specific. It becomes a question though do they lose access to their style or the feats they've picked so far if they stop worshiping said deity?
"may take the following fighting styles" is a bit different than actually having a Deity in the requirement line for each feat.
Yes, a Ranger has to worship that specific deity to get access to that style, but none of those feats themselves are deity specific. It becomes a question though do they lose access to their style or the feats they've picked so far if they stop worshiping said deity?
"may take the following fighting styles" is a bit different than actually having a Deity in the requirement line for each feat.
The lists require the worship of specific deities in order to be available. The feats are not deity specific, but the lists are. This is a restricttive as saying you need to worship shelyn in order to take "X" feat.
"Rangers who worship them may take the following fighting styles" is the same as saying "Rangers who don't worship them may not take the following fighting styles". Or at elast I can't read it in another way.
==========
However, The question is: is there an added flavor with the restriction?, I say it is quite clear that there is not. The same happen in many other instances.
Of course, outside of PFS, "Worshipping a deity" is ill-defined, so you might be able to state you worship every deity in order to qualify for all the feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair Emergency Force Sphere was written for 3.5, with 3.5 in mind, and on a 3.5/PF compatible book (the first, actually). So its not surprising that the spell looks broken for PF standards.
The Core Rulebook was published on august 2009, while Cheliax, Empire of Devils was published on september 2009, a month later. It's safe to assume the book was nearly finished by the time the CRB was out on stores.
|
|
Yes, a Ranger has to worship that specific deity to get access to that style, but none of those feats themselves are deity specific. It becomes a question though do they lose access to their style or the feats they've picked so far if they stop worshiping said deity?
"may take the following fighting styles" is a bit different than actually having a Deity in the requirement line for each feat.
The lists require the worship of specific deities in order to be available. The feats are not deity specific, but the lists are. This is a restricttive as saying you need to worship shelyn in order to take "X" feat.
"Rangers who worship them may take the following fighting styles" is the same as saying "Rangers who don't worship them may not take the following fighting styles". Or at elast I can't read it in another way.
==========
However, The question is: is there an added flavor with the restriction?, I say it is quite clear that there is not. The same happen in many other instances.
The lists require you worship the deity, but once you already have the feats from said list do you still need to worship the deity is the question.
As to your question, yes, it is an enforced flavor though, and something that opens up options for Rangers rather than takes them away. The feats offered through these style tend to overlap somewhat with the others.
The lists require you worship the deity, but once you already have the feats from said list do you still need to worship the deity is the question.
That is a good question.
The lists require you worship the deity, but once you already have the feats from said list do you still need to worship the deity is the question.
As to your question, yes, it is an enforced flavor though, and something that opens up options for Rangers rather than takes them away. The feats offered through these style tend to overlap somewhat with the others.
I don't see how you can say that. The styles are just a list of feat with god name attached to them, nothing flavorful.
Besmara combat style would be ok without besmara. It also would be ok if it were Cayden Cailen style. Heck, I'm sure if it were cayden's, there would people that defend it as the most flavorful thing ever.
In the same way the their list I gave could easily had Norgober associated to it, just because it is easy to associate things in a rather arbitrary way if you really want to do it.
In the end, it is more than clear that the restrictions are not necessary, and I think that they are adding nothing flavorful to the game.
|
|
For those particular combat styles maybe since those are normal feats that absolutely everyone can take, and that's probably why it doesn't bother me, since it's a Combat Style for a specific deity for a Ranger to pick, not a feat chain for everyone (though it can be, they're not restricted from taking the feats, the Ranger just get them early), but lumping them in with things like Bladed Brush and the "restrictions", aka cool stuff for servants of deities isn't the same thing. I believe they are plenty flavorful, since without the flavor they wouldn't even exist at all.
First came Shelyn, then Bladed Brush, not the other way around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus it's not like people in the world of the game would gravitate to glaives unless they are already Shelynites, assuming they get to choose between all the polearms.
Martial proficiency gives you access to the Bardiche (Brace, better crit range), the Bec-de-Corbin (Brace, multiple damage types), the Bill (brace and disarm, but a smaller damage die), the Glaive-Guisarme (Brace, and special bonus to knocking people off of mounts), the Guisarme (Brace, trip, but smaller damage die), the Lucerne Hammer (Better damage die, Brace, multiple damage types, sunder bonus), the Horsechopper (Multiple damage types, Trip), and the Ranseur (disarm, but a smaller damage die).
Of those, 5 are strict upgrades to the Glaive and 3 are situationally useful sidegrades. The Glaive is sort of the "generic polearm" and the reason someone would pick one up instead of a Lucerne hammer or a Bardiche probably relates to their appreciation of the comparative gracefulness of the weapon (the Bardiche and Lucerne Hammer being decidedly ungraceful), which means their sensibilities, at least as far as weapons are concerned, are already pretty Shelynite in nature.
It's not totally different from all the players who are considering Glaives simply because Bladed Brush let's them finesse a polearm with a better damage die than the exotic Branch-Spear. You already want to use a specific weapon because it's the most graceful one in class, so why not make a Shelynite character? "Within one step of NG" is achievable by every standard PC class, after all.
|
|
*nods*
Out of my combined playtime with 3rde and Pathfinder the very first time I saw a glaive being used ever, by PC or NPC, was by the the Cleric of Shelyn in the RotRL PBP I joined 2 years ago. Who was wielding it because it was her goddess's weapon and because it was a martial weapon she was given profiency in.
Of those, 5 are strict upgrades to the Glaive and 3 are situationally useful sidegrades. The Glaive is sort of the "generic polearm" and the reason someone would pick one up instead of a Lucerne hammer or a Bardiche probably relates to their appreciation of the comparative gracefulness of the weapon (the Bardiche and Lucerne Hammer being decidedly ungraceful), which means their sensibilities, at least as far as weapons are concerned, are already pretty Shelynite in nature.
I'm not much savvy on golarion lore, but I think Shelyn didn't took the glaive due to the weapon inherent "comparative gracefulness". In fact, the Whisperer of Souls is quite the opposite of shelyn.
You are making up your own reasons to tie the use of the glaive to shelyn. That's ok, though, Everyone can fill gray options with their own fluff.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm talking about "Gracefulness" in terms of "how the weapon actually works." A Lucerne Hammer is a spike and a big spiky hammer with some more spikes at the end of a pole you use to puncture or smash. A Bardiche is an axe at the end of a pole, you use it to chop and hew. A Glaive is a blade on the end of a pole, it's simple and elegant, and you slash with it.
I mean, absent of the lore of the Golarion which of these three weapons do you think would be the most elegant and least messy in combat?
Bardiche, Lucerne Hammer, Glaive
A glaive is more elegant than a bardiche or a lucerne hammer in precisely the same way a sword is more elegant than a battle axe or a warhammer.
|
|
Of those, 5 are strict upgrades to the Glaive and 3 are situationally useful sidegrades. The Glaive is sort of the "generic polearm" and the reason someone would pick one up instead of a Lucerne hammer or a Bardiche probably relates to their appreciation of the comparative gracefulness of the weapon (the Bardiche and Lucerne Hammer being decidedly ungraceful), which means their sensibilities, at least as far as weapons are concerned, are already pretty Shelynite in nature.I'm not much savvy on golarion lore, but I think Shelyn didn't took the glaive due to the weapon inherent "comparative gracefulness". In fact, the Whisperer of Souls is quite the opposite of shelyn.
You are making up your own reasons to tie the use of the glaive to shelyn. That's ok, though, Everyone can fill gray options with their own fluff.
You'r both kinda right. The un-corrupted glaive originally belonged to both of them (unless that got retconned) when they were both deities of beauty. When Dou Bral left and became Zon-Kuthon and then came back Shelyn took back the glaive, not only to try to redeem him but the weapon too, and the act of making it her favored weapon she is succeeding in that regard by declaring it and all glaives weapons representing beauty and finesse.
I'm talking about "Gracefulness" in terms of "how the weapon actually works." A Lucerne Hammer is a spike and a big spiky hammer with some more spikes at the end of a pole you use to puncture or smash. A Bardiche is an axe at the end of a pole, you use it to chop and hew. A Glaive is a blade on the end of a pole, it's simple and elegant, and you slash with it.
I mean, absent of the lore of the Golarion which of these three weapons do you think would be the most elegant and least messy in combat?
Bardiche, Lucerne Hammer, Glaive
A glaive is more elegant than a bardiche or a lucerne hammer in precisely the same way a sword is more elegant than a battle axe or a warhammer.
You are adding "simple and elegant" as an afterthought justification for the glaive. But the choice remains quite arbitrary.
I'll give an example of something that could have been in the rules but thankfully did not.
There was a point the warpriest playtest where some people advocated that warpriest could use their class features only when using their god favorite weapon. I pretty sure some people would find rather ingenious way to justify why a warpriest of pharasma would refuse to use anything else besides a dagger in combat. It's good that such restriction didn't reach the final product.
It is easy to put arbitrary restrictions on combat feats. You can put "only for Gorum worshipers" in like half of the total combat feats. THat would not make them more flavorful though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea of "There is something special about how they do it" has to be supported by somekind of exclusivity.
But these things have to be at balance of equal weight. The more special it is, the more exclusive it has to be. Lots of restrictions to get a small benefit feels unsatisfying, no restrictions for large benefit means it was never special to begin with.
It is hard to make feats feel special because they are so limited in impact and scope. Prestige classes allow more room because it takes bigger sacrifice to spend one level rather than one feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one don't believe such feats (or any other options for that matter) should be restricted by flavor.
It does make some flavor options more I retesting, but I think it hurts that game in too many other ways.
Leave the flavor up to the GM and players to enforce. Otherwise, its a rule mechanic, not flavor. Official flavor should always be optional guidelines only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus it's not like people in the world of the game would gravitate to glaives unless they are already Shelynites, assuming they get to choose between all the polearms.
Baphomet and Crocell also have that weapon as a favored weapon. SO a CE, a LE and a NG god's followers would be as likely to gravitate to the weapon but only one can figure it out...
It much like other divine fighting feats as more than that particular god favors that weapon. 4 deities favor light crossbows. 16 use a mace. 4 can use the starknife. 14 use bows...
Craziness can ensue in pathfinder, by the rules... like having a 19 inch tall grippli (which race is stated as being size small, not tiny) using a sarissa.. which is still 20' long as a size-small weapon (just the damage is different from medium size, as usual).
Plus it's not like people in the world of the game would gravitate to glaives unless they are already Shelynites, assuming they get to choose between all the polearms.Baphomet and Crocell also have that weapon as a favored weapon. SO a CE, a LE and a NG god's followers would be as likely to gravitate to the weapon but only one can figure it out...
It much like other divine fighting feats as more than that particular god favors that weapon. 4 deities favor light crossbows. 16 use a mace. 4 can use the starknife. 14 use bows...
I feel though that the mechanical options specific to deities are going to be slanted heavily towards the 19 (+ Green Faith) core Golarion deities, and this is more or less as it should be. You buy the CRB and it tells you about Torag, and Zon-Kuthon, and Gozreh but you have to read something else to find out about Lorris, or Chaldira, or Nivi Rhombodazzle.
But even if we did start fleshing out divine fighting styles for everybody else, the infernal dukes and the demon lords are going to be pretty low on that list considering that most PCs are good or neutral. That being said, I do appreciate the idea about a follower of Baphomet who infiltrated a Shelynite church to learn their fighting style (since that's kind of their thing). If I had a player who wanted to be a follower of Baphomet and take Bladed Brush I'd allow it (this won't happen, b/c we don't do evil characters, *and* we killed Baphomet, but hypothetically speaking.)
"Step up".
Any GM can negate a full round attack by not standing and trading unless you have an archer, and in cases where the PC is the better fighter it often makes sense to not allow the PC's to get in full round attack.
That doesn't always work. In your idea I think you are assuming the opponent is trying to get a full attack and step away. I was thinking more like trading one hit for one hit. Someone wielding a two handed weapon might win that battle. Someone who is going sword and board or TWF might not.
Plus it's not like people in the world of the game would gravitate to glaives unless they are already Shelynites, assuming they get to choose between all the polearms.Baphomet and Crocell also have that weapon as a favored weapon. SO a CE, a LE and a NG god's followers would be as likely to gravitate to the weapon but only one can figure it out...
It much like other divine fighting feats as more than that particular god favors that weapon. 4 deities favor light crossbows. 16 use a mace. 4 can use the starknife. 14 use bows...
I feel though that the mechanical options specific to deities are going to be slanted heavily towards the 19 (+ Green Faith) core Golarion deities, and this is more or less as it should be. You buy the CRB and it tells you about Torag, and Zon-Kuthon, and Gozreh but you have to read something else to find out about Lorris, or Chaldira, or Nivi Rhombodazzle.
But even if we did start fleshing out divine fighting styles for everybody else, the infernal dukes and the demon lords are going to be pretty low on that list considering that most PCs are good or neutral. That being said, I do appreciate the idea about a follower of Baphomet who infiltrated a Shelynite church to learn their fighting style (since that's kind of their thing). If I had a player who wanted to be a follower of Baphomet and take Bladed Brush I'd allow it (this won't happen, b/c we don't do evil characters, *and* we killed Baphomet, but hypothetically speaking.)
You miss my point completely. Why couldn't it be the favored weapon that determines the fighting style? That way EVERY deity now and in the future can use the one that matches their weapon. It's simple to make options for the core deities that aren't limited to just them. That makes more sense than 'only THIS god's worshipers can figure out spin a glaive...'. Instead of X god, make it require 'worship of a deity that has x favored weapon'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there is no divine magical effect attached to the feat, then better to not put the restriction in the first place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read the whole thread but this doesn't actually matter. When you level up as a wizard, you pick 2 new spells. Its better to say before the game that blood money is banned than to say "suddenly the rules change forever"
I feel like there are so many different spells in so many different books for this game that just because the Wizard gets to learn two spells, doesn't mean they get to learn any two spells they can name.
Like "check with me if it's not in an RPG line book" is not an unreasonable standard for spells, feats, gear, anything.
Is there is no divine magical effect attached to the feat, then better to not put the restriction in the first place.
While I would like that too, if they truly felt it required some restriction then I'd like it to be as inclusive as possible to allow for the most possible character's to use. With there being nothing deity related in the bladed brush feat, I see no reason it shouldn't be fine for other's with favored weapon: glaive.
You might feel that way but thats not what the rules are.
Well, strictly speaking the *rules* say that the GM can say "*Poof* Blood Money doesn't exist" six levels after you took it. It's just that "pre-clearing your stuff with the GM in a friendly manner" is a good way to avoid unilateral invocations of rule 0.
I mean, Chapter 12, Page 396 of the Core Rulebook includes this doozy
The Game Master must be the arbiter of everything that occurs in the game. All rule books, including this one, are his tools, but his word is the law.
Though the GM has ultimate and unimpeachable authority regarding the rules of the game, a "check with me when you level up" social contract is a significantly gentler option.
Plus you can reasonably infer "out of the set of books you're using" from the "pick a spell" and the odds are pretty low that the set of books you're using necessarily contains Rise of the Runelords: Anniversary Edition, if you're not actually playing RotRL.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ah yeah, i dont play games where its a dance of "mother may I" to the gm. I think that sucks too much so i would rather not even try. You can like it though
So, in games you play a synthesist summoner with sacred geometry can take leadership, so that his wizard cohort can craft magic items for him? And if my between the lines translation is working, a game where such is not allowed sucks?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ah yeah, i dont play games where its a dance of "mother may I" to the gm. I think that sucks too much so i would rather not even try. You can like it thoughSo, in games you play a synthesist summoner with sacred geometry can take leadership, so that his wizard cohort can craft magic items for him? And if my between the lines translation is working, a game where such is not allowed sucks?
Looking at it the other way: Should you have to ask if you can play a human fighter that uses a club in two hands with power attack? The 'social contract' should be an agreed upon rule set before hand. Of course there can always be things that fall through the cracks, so the occasional issue may crop up that requires a new ruling, but that's different than 'the DM can change things at will so you never know what you'll be able to do in the future'.
It's important to remember that the 'social contract' runs both ways. If you expect "pre-clearing your stuff with the GM in a friendly manner" then the players should expect 'upfront explanation of houserules and expectations of what's allowed and not'. It's not cool for either side to 'surprise' the other: The DM doesn't get a pass because of 'rule 0'.
I mean, my rules are basically:
- If it's not in a book I own, ask me about it first.
- Level up between sessions, and if you have changes please submit character sheets within 48 hours of the next session so I can familiarize myself with the rules for your new stuff.
- On rare occasions (generally setting/lore related) I may need to veto something, but I'm always willing to work with you to make possible the character you want to play.
- What follows is a brief but not-exhaustive list of things that you should not expect to be allowed to use (e.g. Chained Summoners, gun-based classes/archetypes, the Leadership feat, Raise Dead/Resurrection/Reincarnation/etc.)
I mean, my rules are basically:
- If it's not in a book I own, ask me about it first.
- Level up between sessions, and if you have changes please submit character sheets within 48 hours of the next session so I can familiarize myself with the rules for your new stuff.
- On rare occasions (generally setting/lore related) I may need to veto something, but I'm always willing to work with you to make possible the character you want to play.
- What follows is a brief but not-exhaustive list of things that you should not expect to be allowed to use (e.g. Chained Summoners, gun-based classes/archetypes, the Leadership feat, Raise Dead/Resurrection/Reincarnation/etc.)
Most of that looks cool. My only issue would be the "book I own" thing. While I'll look through the books, I go to the online sources to actually build the character. This is for ease of use AND the sites actually keep up with various FAQ/errata that creep up. The result is that I generally don't note what book it's out of: I'd most likely just pass the whole thing over to have it OK'd instead of going back to check sources.
Speaking for myself, I always get nervous when someone starts talking about a DM using 'rule 0'. I've had too many instance where the game was like a trippy drug trip because the rules kept changing at the drop of a hat. I'm cool with the rare veto though, as you can't be expected to think of everything.
It always says the source of the spell/feat/etc. on the D20pfsrd or the Archives of Nethys page, doesn't it?
The reason I want to at least get advance warning on stuff from books I don't have is that most of those books are Golarion specific (player companions, and campaign setting books) and I run games in my own setting (other people in my group run Golarion stuff, which I enjoy, I just run my own stuff) so if something is firmly established in Golarion lore, and a player wants to take something like, say, a feat tied to a deity or an organization that does not exist outside of the default Pathfinder setting, I'm going to want to think about how to reflavor it so it fits naturally (or potentially conclude that it doesn't- e.g. Desna's Shooting Star in a world where there basically are no starknives.) This is also an opportunity to have a discussion with a player about how they think it should fit that helps build a shared understanding of the game world.
I don't think you could be more wrong. I even said to ban stuff before the game starts
So hypothetically, I outline a list of stuff that is banned before the start of the game, but there are maybe some spells or feats I'm unfamiliar with because I've never read them before, when is the appropriate time to say no to those? I'm not adverse to allowing stuff from obscure player companions, but I won't claim to have read them all.
Let's say we're in the middle of a campaign, and a new Paizo book comes out and there's something in that book I do not want in my game, when is the appropriate time to say no to that?
It always says the source of the spell/feat/etc. on the D20pfsrd or the Archives of Nethys page, doesn't it?
It's not uncommon for me to have multiple ideas for characters, archetypes, feats, ect. As such I may may try several different builds until I get what I like. Most of this is done offline after I've copied the various info I'm looking over and try different things. As such, I'm not looking at the page that has source info when I finish making my character. It's just something I wouldn't think to do as it's always been meaningless info to me before.
The reason I want to at least get advance warning on stuff from books I don't have is that most of those books are Golarion specific (player companions, and campaign setting books) and I run games in my own setting (other people in my group run Golarion stuff, which I enjoy, I just run my own stuff) so if something is firmly established in Golarion lore, and a player wants to take something like, say, a feat tied to a deity or an organization that does not exist outside of the default Pathfinder setting, I'm going to want to think about how to reflavor it so it fits naturally (or potentially conclude that it doesn't- e.g. Desna's Shooting Star in a world where there basically are no starknives.) This is also an opportunity to have a discussion with a player about how they think it should fit that helps build a shared understanding of the game world.
I've always someone that'll refluff things to better fit my character if needed, so I'd likely suggest a few ways something with Golarion requirements could fit. I've never felt the need to cling to the fluff too much as 99% of the times, I can come up with multiple other fluffs that fit just as well.
I tend to agree when people starting waving around rule zero it's quite obnoxious, makes one question whether a DM will enjoy an empty table.
I think the problem going on in this discussion is
Possible cabbage suggesting everything the DM doesn't own should go through DM before they're taken and that DMs should be free to make rulings on the fly because rule 0
Other people saying, well that's annoying and cam create an unplayable atmosphere
To which cabbage replies well these are my rules are they unreasonable (no not really)
But not every DM owns every book that isn't setting specific(some only have a couple), have as reasonable rules or makes reasonable rules up on the fly, so just because you run the game a certain way and don't abuse it doesn't mean the way you think the game should be run isn't easily abusable by a less reasonable DM.
I think that's the crux on the issue.
I don't think you could be more wrong. I even said to ban stuff before the game startsSo hypothetically, I outline a list of stuff that is banned before the start of the game, but there are maybe some spells or feats I'm unfamiliar with because I've never read them before, when is the appropriate time to say no to those? I'm not adverse to allowing stuff from obscure player companions, but I won't claim to have read them all.
Let's say we're in the middle of a campaign, and a new Paizo book comes out and there's something in that book I do not want in my game, when is the appropriate time to say no to that?
I am sure he was talking about things already in publication when the game began.
With that aside you way is not wrong, but it is not objectively right.
I just give players a list of pre-approved books, and tell them to ask me about anything else. <----I'm also not saying that is the best way, but it works for me, and it provides another way to handle things.