From the Mutant Player Characters section of "People of the Wastes"
A deformity can’t be chosen if it wouldn’t disadvantage the PC.
How precisely should I read "disadvantage the PC"? Obviously something that would be impossible to come up due to other factors (e.g. taking "Light Blindness" on a character that is already blind from, for example, the Blind Zeal trait) would not disadvantage the player. But would, for example, "Fractured Mind" ("When the mutant fails a Will save, it is confused for 1 round") be a permissible choice for a character that will eventually become immune to confusion?
For example would a Psychic Marauder mutant be allowed to choose fractured mind, even though they will become immune to confusion at level 9? They will be "disadvantaged" when they fail a will save for the first 8 levels, but not thereafter. This, to me, seems reasonable but what if a character gains immunity to their mutant deformity at an earlier level? Would a mutant who gained immunity to the drawback of their deformity at, say, level 2 still count as being "disadvantaged" because they're still paying for it at level 1? What about an Oozemorph mutant who takes "Misshapen" (normal armor doesn't fit you) that would only ever apply in an anti-magic zone (or if they teach someone druidic, I guess), because otherwise their normal form is a blob that will shape itself into something that can wear normal armor?
This is "ask your GM" territory, but if I'm the GM how should I interpret this?
Come to think of it, shouldn't the "Blind" Mutant deformity and the "Blind Zeal" trait stack, since the trait doesn't specify why you're blind just that you've been trained by the followers of Vildeis to deal with it?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Think of it like the metamagic slots. You use the most disadvantageous value (original or higher) for any need that is the worse.
For example, in a Ring of Spell Storing, you use 6 for a Maximized Fireball and for whether or not it is suppressed in a Globe of Invulnerability you use 3 for the Maximized Fireball.
In this case, if the PC takes something that is an advantage for them or is negated then it is no longer a disadvantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At 9th level fractured mind is no longer a disadvantage and is no longer a legal choice.
Pick something else.
My advice: if you reasonably expect to go the next level without inconvenience from that drawback, it’s time to change.
If I were to GM that event, I would give it to the character for a period of time - probably 1-2 days after the character fails a will save but is not confused. Then, the mutation will adapt and the character will take on some other disadvantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, if you, e.g., acquired immunity to confusion, I'd rule that either your immunity doesn't apply to your mutation or you lose any benefits of said mutation. (I don't have the text for this so my answer is probably lacking in context.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But does the text mean "disadvantaged when you make this choice" or "disadvantaged forever"?
Like if I have a Mutant who has useless malformed arm, that is later severed in some combat accident, do I keep the beneficial mutation or spontaneously develop a new one?
If a Druid takes "misshapen" but gets whenever/wherever/all-the-time alter self at level 13, can't they just shape themselves into something not misshapen? Should they lose the beneficial mutation or be forced to choose a new one?
It feels sort of like "your character is disadvantaged, as a mutant, and makes decisions to mitigate that disadvantage at a later date" is a sensible decision for a character to make. Though probably nobody would voluntarily become an insane psychic, but I could see going into druiding because you are a mutant.
But does the text mean "disadvantaged when you make this choice" or "disadvantaged forever"?
IMO it's "disadvantaged when you make this choice".
For instance, replacing a Useless Arm with a clockwork one is totally fine. It WAS a disadvantage when you got it. Same as if you take a level of Constructed Pugilist and replace that arm with your Constructed Limb. Or get a Brown Veemod to fix Light Blindness...
I would treat it like M and M. You get the benefit for as long as it remains a disadvantage. If its no longer a disadvantage you lose the benefit. If they want it back offer them the choice of taking a new disadvantage
Put me firmly in the camp of disadvantage at the time of taking it with the caveat that its not going to be immediately overcome. No taking for instance the confusion on knowing your going to level out of it later.
You get the benefit for as long as it remains a disadvantage. If its no longer a disadvantage you lose the benefit.
There is no 'benefit' though, it just part of "mutant character". It's not 'take disadvantage then get an advantage, it's take both.... Nothing makes one contingent on the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my view, the disadvantage is still a disadvantage if it is later neutralised through, feat, choice or expenditure on a magic item. The player has made a choice to expend resources neutralising the disadvantage rather than gaining another benefit. I.e. the disadvantage has prevented them from gaining a different benefit.
I have to agree with blaphers. The easiest way is to say that your immunity does not apply. In the case of the druid he would still be misshapen when he changed forms. He can still become any type of humanoid he wants but is will be misshapen. So he turns into a goblin and that goblin is misshapen.
I have to agree with blaphers. The easiest way is to say that your immunity does not apply. In the case of the druid he would still be misshapen when he changed forms. He can still become any type of humanoid he wants but is will be misshapen. So he turns into a goblin and that goblin is misshapen.
So someone with a useless arm that chops it off and replaces it with a clockwork arm ends up with a useless clockwork arm? Shapechange always has a useless arm? They take a level of oozemorph and now have a blob form that has a useless arm?
IMO, this line of cause and effect makes no sense.
I'd play it in pretty broad strokes. A creature who's already light blinded naturally or doesn't have eyes can't take light blindness. that kinda thing.
I really can't agree with the notion that it should be retroactively applied if it stops mattering later or that it should overcome immunities though. That just feels gamist and spiteful.
|
You can give thing to balance the deformity.
Example take 2 feats for +10 foot speed and balance lame. But lame still reduce you 10 foot.
You can get an extra arm by magic or tecnology, but your old usseless arm still there.
IMO you cant use inmunity to confusion, staggered, etc to avoid those.
I mind about if temporal magic effects like calm emptions or freedom of movement would work. Im think not, cause magic cant heal deaf or blindness deformities anyway raw is not clear
Example take 2 feats for +10 foot speed and balance lame. But lame still reduce you 10 foot.
You can get an extra arm by magic or tecnology, but your old usseless arm still there.
IMO you cant use inmunity to confusion, staggered, etc to avoid those.
Essentially, this.
If you can balance out a disadvantage, it remains a disadvantage. If it eventually is no longer a disadvantage, it is no longer a valid choice. There is no "time factor" involved in when you choose the disadvantage. It's like saying, "You have herpes if you eat a hot dog." If you stop eating hot dogs, you don't suddenly get cured of herpes, even if you become immune to the effects of hot dogs.
Personally, I would not allow the combination, knowing that the character would eventually become immune to the disadvantage in the absence of any alternative choices. If for some reason my player made a compelling argument for choosing this combination, I would inform them that at the point that they become immune to the disadvantage, they must change their choice and select a new disadvantage. If the player is okay with that, then we'd proceed. If the player then decided that they didn't want to do this, then you'd know that the player was intentionally attempting to abuse the system rules. Intent can be very telling.
Best wishes!
Alternatively, they don't like getting screwed by the GM or their GM having an ethos of looking to screw them.
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
Interesting that you would choose to see it that way. Either way, the player would have been given options and would have made their own choice with the full knowledge of what those choices would lead to, rather than "getting screwed by the GM". Interpreting rules in such a fashion as to avoid such contradictions does not translate to "having an ethos of looking to screw [players]".
Confirmation bias works both ways. Your bias is showing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree with blaphers. The easiest way is to say that your immunity does not apply. In the case of the druid he would still be misshapen when he changed forms. He can still become any type of humanoid he wants but is will be misshapen. So he turns into a goblin and that goblin is misshapen.So someone with a useless arm that chops it off and replaces it with a clockwork arm ends up with a useless clockwork arm? Shapechange always has a useless arm? They take a level of oozemorph and now have a blob form that has a useless arm?
IMO, this line of cause and effect makes no sense.
Maybe the reason the arm is useless is because of damage to the spine and other nerves. Grafting on a replacement arm does not repair that damage.
In Pathfinder when you change shape you keep your own stats and only gain what the power states. So if I am an old man with a STR of 5 and shapechange into a horse my STR is 9 instead of 16. But if I normally have a 20 STR and change into a horse I have a 24 STR. If I change into a tiger instead of a horse my STR is exactly the same even though a tiger normally has a much higher STR than a horse. That makes it pretty obvious that your physical condition carries over when you are in a different form. In the case of the blob he would end up having part of his body being useless. The exact details would have to be worked out, but he would be handicapped in an equivalent manner.
Maybe the reason the arm is useless is because of damage to the spine and other nerves. Grafting on a replacement arm does not repair that damage.
And WHY would any of that matter to a magic arm? A shapechanged one? A blob that has a radically different body WITHOUT a spine? I can grow working wings but it's flummoxed by a new working leg? Again, it's a "line of cause and effect makes no sense".
In Pathfinder when you change shape you keep your own stats and only gain what the power states.
Cool... So WHEN where we talking about stats? Polymorph allows growth of new limbs, new mode of movement, new methods of natural attacks, new senses... But it somehow can't recreate a useless limb or make a new eye that doesn't have light sensitivity? That makes NO sense IMO. Again, it's a "line of cause and effect makes no sense".
Pretty much this all boils down to the universe, deities and/or this template has a will of it's own and actively messes around with you. It's much like Bodhizen's idea that if you fix something from it, it 'gets its revenge' by inventing a NEW handicap because you dared tempt fate and overcome the last one... P Again, it's a "line of cause and effect makes no sense".
Pretty much this all boils down to the universe, deities and/or this template has a will of it's own and actively messes around with you. It's much like Bodhizen's idea that if you fix something from it, it 'gets its revenge' by inventing a NEW handicap because you dared tempt fate and overcome the last one... P Again, it's a "line of cause and effect makes no sense".
There's no revenge here. The mutant creature template requires that the deformity disadvantage the character (in exchange for other things). If you really want to argue semantics, the template states, "A deformity can’t be taken if it wouldn’t disadvantage the mutant", and an argument could be made that removing the disadvantage of the deformity would no longer disadvantage the mutant, so that would not be an acceptable choice from level 1. Of course, mutation is an interesting concept, and mutations change in various organisms throughout their lifespans.
From a purely technical standpoint, if Item A requires Thing B, and Thing B is no longer available, then Item A would fail to function properly.
Pretty much this all boils down to the universe, deities and/or this template has a will of it's own and actively messes around with you. It's much like Bodhizen's idea that if you fix something from it, it 'gets its revenge' by inventing a NEW handicap because you dared tempt fate and overcome the last one... P Again, it's a "line of cause and effect makes no sense".There's no revenge here. The mutant creature template requires that the deformity disadvantage the character (in exchange for other things). If you really want to argue semantics, the template states, "A deformity can’t be taken if it wouldn’t disadvantage the mutant", and an argument could be made that removing the disadvantage of the deformity would no longer disadvantage the mutant, so that would not be an acceptable choice from level 1. Of course, mutation is an interesting concept, and mutations change in various organisms throughout their lifespans.
From a purely technical standpoint, if Item A requires Thing B, and Thing B is no longer available, then Item A would fail to function properly.
You quoted the rules but you didn't really read them closely. "A deformity can’t be taken if it wouldn’t disadvantage the mutant". Note the bolded word. You are adding 'continually' in front of the word disadvantage. The template checks when you take it or it'd SAY 'most always be a disadvantage' or something of the sort.
Your thing A and B falls on its face as there is no such proviso in the template rules: the deformity ISN'T a prerequisite or anything of the kind. it's just one of the things you get from the template.
Let me put it this way: if you treat the deformity this way, then do you treat the advantage as ALWAYS an advantage? Does taking Bulbous Eyes mean that you're immune to blinding? And if not, why the double standard that advantages can be taken away but not disadvantages?
Now don't get me wrong: if you want to do this as a DM, that's up to you and your players. My issue is that you're trying to justify it and IMO you can't through logic or rules: It's just the "universe, deities and/or this template" getting it's revenge the the player finding a way to fix himself. I know that's the way I'd take it if you tried that line of logic and I was a player. It's one thing to say you don't like it and another to try to justify it in some logic/game sense.
Or as I said before: it's a "line of cause and effect makes no sense". It's causing active changes to a passive affect and the only way that happens is a meta-reason and not an in game one.
Personally, I would not allow the combination, knowing that the character would eventually become immune to the disadvantage in the absence of any alternative choices. If for some reason my player made a compelling argument for choosing this combination, I would inform them that at the point that they become immune to the disadvantage, they must change their choice and select a new disadvantage. If the player is okay with that, then we'd proceed. If the player then decided that they didn't want to do this, then you'd know that the player was intentionally attempting to abuse the system rules. Intent can be very telling.Alternatively, they don't like getting screwed by the GM or their GM having an ethos of looking to screw them.
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
Only on these forums can someone argue that the phrase "must be disadvantaged" means the person running the game is screwing them.
It's like table flipping because casting shocking grasp costs you a spell per day.
Frankly this isn't about the GM. This is entirely about the player trying to loophole something and seeing what they can get away with. That's not the GM screwing people. And you must be on that same drug of confirmation bias if you can't see this is the player actively doing something not the GM
I fail to see how using your resources to overcome your disadvantage as a 'loophole'. In fact, look at the section RIGHT after the mutant one in the waste book:
"Mutants whose mutations make using standard weapons or other gear difficult sometimes attach mechanical prostheses to their existing limbs. Many develop combat skills that use their prostheses so they always have a weapon at hand. Over time, these brawlers (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide 23) customize their mechanic"
The starting section states: "Some mutated creatures augment their forms with technology"... Sure doesn't SOUND like the section is discouraging you from slaping on a clockwork limb to replace a useless one IMO.
The archetype, in the mutant section mind you, is telling you that this archetype came about BECAUSE of mutants trying to overcome their mutations: it's just badwrongfun if a mutant outside it tries the same kind of 'loophole'?
IMO, it IS the DM messing with you: 'you dared to find a way to mitigate your disadvantage!!! You MUST be punished with a new one right away!!!' :P It's like getting mad at the Wyrwood because he found a 'loophole' so he can get healed or a merfolk that got a 'loophole' so they can move normal speeds. It just seems mean/spiteful. IMO it's the DM "table flipping" and is frankly ALL about the DM...
You quoted the rules but you didn't really read them closely. "A deformity can’t be taken if it wouldn’t disadvantage the mutant". Note the bolded word. You are adding 'continually' in front of the word disadvantage. The template checks when you take it or it'd SAY 'most always be a disadvantage' or something of the sort.
Your thing A and B falls on its face as there is no such proviso in the template rules: the deformity ISN'T a prerequisite or anything of the kind. it's just one of the things you get from the template.
Let me put it this way: if you treat the deformity this way, then do you treat the advantage as ALWAYS an advantage? Does taking Bulbous Eyes mean that you're immune to blinding? And if not, why the double standard that advantages can be taken away but not disadvantages?
Now don't get me wrong: if you want to do this as a DM, that's up to you and your players. My issue is that you're trying to justify it and IMO you can't through logic or rules: It's just the "universe, deities and/or this template" getting it's revenge the the player finding a way to fix himself. I know that's the way I'd take it if you tried that line of logic and I was a player. It's one thing to say you don't like it and another to try to justify it in some logic/game sense.
Or as I said before: it's a "line of cause and effect makes no sense". It's causing active changes to a passive affect and the only way that happens is a meta-reason and not an in game one.
It's interesting that you're making an accusation that someone else is not reading the rules closely, and yet, you're reaching unfounded conclusions that people that may disagree with, and you are inserting words when standing procedures don't allow for you to add (or remove) conditions. Sure, a deformity cannot be taken if it wouldn't disadvantage the mutant, but no time frame is specified, and therefore, we cannot reasonably interpret that there is an existing time frame (be that "right now", or "in perpetuity") without adding in some additional information. In the absence of a listed time frame, it is reasonable to assume that the time frame isn't relevant whatsoever.
As for the A and B "thing", the template gives you something in exchange for something else. It lists a (albeit poorly worded) requirement as a condition for taking the deformity.
Going to your question about Bulbous Eyes, the mutation grants you darkvision with a range of 60 and low-light vision, which are always active. Certain spells, damage, or environmental conditions may render them useless, but they're always a part of the character. They don't just "go away" because they're defeated. Bulbous eyes does not grant you any sort of immunity or resistance to blinding. Consequently, the deformity should not just "go away", especially since there is specific text to point out that the deformity cannot even be taken if it would not (again, no time frame) disadvantage the mutant. It's a valid reading of rules as written. Gaining a drawback that is later "compensated for" via immunity (rather than something that could expire or be lost) can certainly be argued to go against the spirit of the deformity mechanic, and can arguably go against the actual wording, as immunity would remove the drawback (not compensate for, as in Mondragon's earlier example regarding lame and fleet feats), thusly invalidating it as a possible choice to be taken regardless of other factors. I'm not that restrictive as a GM.
As I previously stated, as a GM, I wouldn't personally allow it, but if the player insisted upon wanting to take that option, I would have a reasonable discussion and inform them of the logical consequences of that choice. In no way did I attempt to justify it. Careful reading (and in all fairness, you accused me of not reading carefully) would show that I would be giving options with logical consequences (as is a GM's right).
If for some reason my player made a compelling argument for choosing this combination, I would inform them that at the point that they become immune to the disadvantage, they must change their choice and select a new disadvantage.
(Emphasis mine.) Note that I did not say, "a compelling argument for this being a valid choice", as I'd already stated that I would not allow it. There is no double standard.
As for your argument for a line of cause and effect, that's certainly a valid interpretation, but not the only one. Gaining immunity to the drawback for your deformity would violate the condition that the drawback would disadvantage the mutant. (Future tense is only one of a variety of valid uses for the word "would".) As I pointed out earlier, if the player intends upon gaining immunity later, then the deformity would (using that future tense if time frame is a factor) not disadvantage the mutant (which is also a valid interpretation if the time frame is not a factor), and therefore, that option would not be a valid choice to be taken.
Since you specifically brought me into this particular discussion (between you and I) by ascribing a position espoused by multiple posters prior to my involvement in this thread explicitly to me, I feel that it fair and reasonable to request that you stop putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting things that I've stated in thread.
Best wishes!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So remember kids next the GM throws out a mutant monster with a powerful mutation just cause it't deformity to be overcome and boom no more mutation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is entirely about the player trying to loophole something and seeing what they can get away with.
Only on these forums can someone argue that a character trying to find a way to overcome their shortcomings later in life is somehow exploiting a loophole.
As I pointed out earlier, if the player intends upon gaining immunity later, then the deformity would (using that future tense if time frame is a factor) not disadvantage the mutant (which is also a valid interpretation if the time frame is not a factor), and therefore, that option would not be a valid choice to be taken.
"If time frame is a factor" seems like a pretty big assumption here though. The ability's text only mentions whether or not you can take the deformity. Nothing about whether or not the deformatiy can be disqualified retroactively. Nothing future proofing and nothing about overcoming immunities, whereas there are a number of other abiliites scattered across Pathfinder that do specifically point out things like this, such as the Brute vigilante specifically saying you can't use brute form if you're immune to fatigue.
Without any text asserting that it does any of these things, why should anyone assume that it's suppposed to work that way? It's not like that interpretation is particularly better for versimilitude or anything either and no one's so far made an argument that it's broken or anything, so I can't see a reason to favor it.
You insist it's poorly written. I say that's only because you're trying to read things into it.
"If time frame is a factor" seems like a pretty big assumption here though. The ability's text only mentions whether or not you can take the deformity. Nothing about whether or not the deformatiy can be disqualified retroactively. Nothing future proofing and nothing about overcoming immunities, whereas there are a number of other abiliites scattered across Pathfinder that do specifically point out things like this, such as the Brute vigilante specifically saying you can't use brute form if you're immune to fatigue.
Without any text asserting that it does any of these things, why should anyone assume that it's suppposed to work that way? It's not like that interpretation is particularly better for versimilitude or anything either and no one's so far made an argument that it's broken or anything, so I can't see a reason to favor it.
You insist it's poorly written. I say that's only because you're trying to read things into it.
I thought that I was reasonably clear in my position that time frame is not a factor here. You're right that brute vigilante specifically states that you can't use brute form if you're immune to fatigue. However, the brute using his vigilante form is not a permanent condition either. Many permanent conditions do not specify a time-frame, and there is nothing to suggest that a deformity is not a permanent condition (as templates are not temporary additions). There's also a reasonable argument that if there's a difference of interpretation on how things work and it's causing debate (as we see in this thread) among multiple posters, the ability in question is poorly worded.
Without any text to suggest its impermanence, I don't see any particular reason to allow any particular feature to explicitly remove (as opposed to compensate for) the drawback. Acquiring a drawback that grants a -4 penalty to a roll and then using a spell, ability, feat, or magic item to grant a +4 to the roll is normal compensation. Acquiring a drawback and then taking something that expressly removes the drawback (particularly when the drawback includes a specific call-out to the drawback needing to disadvantage the character; that could have been left out) is not something that I'd allow at my table under normal circumstances (which has been my consistent position in this thread).
Also, as Talonhawke so kindly points out, it's easily abuseable by the GM. I would find it completely fair for players to cry foul if a GM used it against them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, where this idea that "you always need to be disadvantaged by a mutation, no matter what you do about it" seems wrong when put in context of the "Constructed Pugilist" archetype that is literally the next section of the book:
Mutants whose mutations make using standard weapons or other gear difficult sometimes attach mechanical prostheses to their existing limbs. Many develop combat skills that use their prostheses so they always have a weapon at hand.
So why else would someone in the diagesis choose this archetype as a career path if they didn't have the "malformed arm" mutation, the disadvantages of which they mitigate by use of a special prosthesis?
Or alternatively why do we count "you can fight, but you can't clap" as a meaningful disadvantage when "this sucks for the first 8 levels of your character and not thereafter" is not?
Since you specifically brought me into this particular discussion (between you and I) by ascribing a position espoused by multiple posters prior to my involvement in this thread explicitly to me, I feel that it fair and reasonable to request that you stop putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting things that I've stated in thread.
You posted a quote and made several unfounded assumptions based off of it by adding words to the text. You then made a statement 'if it was my game I'd...'. I see nothing close to 'putting words in your mouth: if you think I did, quote the exact text and let me know what it is because I didn't see it.
Lastly, the template does NOT give "you something in exchange for something else." "the GM can allow the character to have one deformity and one mutation": one is NOT contingent on the other but are both obtained at the same time. The statement/rule isn't tit for tat or quid pro quo.
Since you specifically brought me into this particular discussion (between you and I) by ascribing a position espoused by multiple posters prior to my involvement in this thread explicitly to me, I feel that it fair and reasonable to request that you stop putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting things that I've stated in thread.You posted a quote and made several unfounded assumptions based off of it by adding words to the text. You then made a statement 'if it was my game I'd...'. I see nothing close to 'putting words in your mouth: if you think I did, quote the exact text and let me know what it is because I didn't see it.
Actually, sir, I was explicitly arguing against the words that you added to it to give it your own meaning. I'm neither making assumptions, nor interpreting them in a manner that is not based in the text of the template (i.e. unfounded).
If the character is immune to the disadvantaged condition, then the interpretation of "If a deformity would not disadvantage the mutant, it cannot be taken." (emphasis mine) would no longer be valid, and since we know that the player intends for the deformity to not disadvantage the mutant (given the build options that they expressed an interest in taking), it is reasonable to determine that the deformity will not (at some point, anyway) disadvantage the mutant and therefore not be a valid option by rules as written. You are interpreting "... would not disadvantage the mutant, it cannot be taken." to include the words "... would not disadvantage the mutant at the time the deformity is chosen, it cannot be taken.", as opposed to "... would not disadvantage the mutant, it cannot be taken.".
As for the Constructed Pugilist (as mentioned by Possible Cabbage), I don't see anything that states that the prosthesis replaces a malformed arm. It does state that the Constructed Pugilist's constructed limb may be removed or reattached, so in that case you're compensating for a useless arm (which seems perfectly valid), not granting immunity to your arm being useless (which is a significantly different thing that would restore your useless arm back to full functionality, and then you get the constructed limb on top of that).
Lastly, the template does NOT give "you something in exchange for something else." "the GM can allow the character to have one deformity and one mutation": one is NOT contingent on the other but are both obtained at the same time. The statement/rule isn't tit for tat or quid pro quo.
My apologies, you are correct. You can optionally take the deformity, but you don't have to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I don't really see, though, is why "you took an archetype that allows you to overcome your useless arm, by constructing a spiky telescoping death machine you wear over it, but you still can't juggle" is a "disadvantage" in a way that "It takes you 9 levels of your career to conclude that '" is not.
Like it seems like "my mind was fractured by a mutation, why is how I became an insane psychic, and eventually I get a handle on that, but am no less deranged, just dealing" is a totally valid concept for a character.
People, we are never going to solve this: power gamers will always try to get a "disadvantage" mitigated and eventually negated. Other kind of players will always balk at this type of approach.
It depends on the GM and the players, like everything else, and nothing good will come out of discussing this.
I feel like the solution to power gamers is to simply not let people you suspect of being such play mutants. The book is explicit: "A GM *can* allow" not that anybody is entitled to be a mutant.
My question is mostly whether the "disadvantage the PC" clause precludes a player from playing a character whose diagetic reasoning for following the career path they do is related to the hardships imposed by their mutation, possibly one that renders it a non-issue after time.
Like "Your mind was fractured by a magical mutation, this has given you psychic powers, but also rendered you fairly unhinged, making you a psychic marauder, and as you grow in your power you eventually become able to overcome the downsides of your fractured mind." Makes sense to me as a character, I mean at the very least a level 20 psychic marauder is immune to anything mind-affecting, as a capstone this probably shouldn't care how mutated your brain was when you started. Likewise "your mutation has rendered you blind, and so you were taken in by followers of Vildeis and trained to deal with it, because 'taking care of blind orphans' seems like a pretty good thing for followers of an LG Empyreal Lord to do."
I feel like the solution to power gamers is to simply not let people you suspect of being such play mutants. The book is explicit: "A GM *can* allow" not that anybody is entitled to be a mutant.
My question is mostly whether the "disadvantage the PC" clause precludes a player from playing a character whose diagetic reasoning for following the career path they do is related to the hardships imposed by their mutation, possibly one that renders it a non-issue after time.
Like "Your mind was fractured by a magical mutation, this has given you psychic powers, but also rendered you fairly unhinged, making you a psychic marauder, and as you grow in your power you eventually become able to overcome the downsides of your fractured mind." Makes sense to me as a character, I mean at the very least a level 20 psychic marauder is immune to anything mind-affecting, as a capstone this probably shouldn't care how mutated your brain was when you started. Likewise "your mutation has rendered you blind, and so you were taken in by followers of Vildeis and trained to deal with it, because 'taking care of blind orphans' seems like a pretty good thing for followers of an LG Empyreal Lord to do."
When the character gets there update the mutation/disadvantage via houseruling. Yes, getting more experienced made the PC immune to some of the those earlier drawbacks but as the Pc's power increased so did the negatives from his mutation.
Example: Now the PC feels a peculiar clarity when a thousand voices scream in his mind, which is every second of his life now... to him they feel like old friends and sometimes he just needs to stop and talk with them... after all it would not be right to do anything else...
Meaning every minute the PC rolls willpower to a DC equal to his character level +10. If he fails he spends the next 1d3 rounds talking with himself and refusing to acknowledge even mortal peril, which means he gainst the stunned condition for that duration.
The rules from People of the Wastes aren't the same as the template though.
People of the Wastes says:
If a player wants to play a mutant character, the GM can allow the character to have one deformity and one mutation from the mutant template (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 5 180). Because some options are inappropriate for normal play, a mutant PC can’t normally choose the mindless or vulnerability deformity or any of the following mutations: celerity, extra arm, fast healing, mental armor, rage, rugged, sealed mind, or wings. A deformity can’t be chosen if it wouldn’t disadvantage the PC.
So you're choosing from some of the options the template allows, but you don't have the template. Templates, in general, are unavailable to player characters in Pathfinder.