| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has been much discussion of rarity in other thread, but I've not seen a thread dedicated to it, or I'd post there.
My view on rarity is different from what most people seem to think. To me, things that are uncommon/rare are not so because some cabal of in-world secret masters are hoarding them, or for any other simulationist reason having to do with economics or some such.
Rare and uncommon items are so rated as they are known problems in games. They are easy way to circumvent problems many DMs feel should not be circumvented. Teleport allows you to bypass travel, protection from evil bypasses some of the horror about outsiders, fly bypasses all need to climb or take long detours. In other words, rarity is there to put power into the hands of the GM. Its a gaming table phenomenon, not an in-world phenomenon.
So the rarity problem that came up at our table was thus-
A half-orc fighter wants to use the necksplitter as a primary weapon. It's an exotic weapon, but fighters are proficient so that's fine. What it is, however, is an uncommon weapon, and since half-orcs have to burn a heritage feat on "being half-orcs" they cannot get the feat that guarantees them access (and knocks it down to martial) until level 3. So does the fighter use a different weapon for 3 levels and we have to figure out a justification for finding a necksplitter and learning to use it even if no orcs appear at any point in those 3 levels? Or do we just invoke "the GM can allow access to any uncommon items at their discretion" and let the fighter have access to necksplitters because it's part of their backstory? And if we do that, what's the point of even having feats which guarantee access to things if we can get around them via cultivated backstories?
While there are a lot of issues with the current uncommon rules, I feel that a rather major one that needs addressing is spells. Due to the large amount of content currently labeled uncommon, it's going to see a lot of use by PC's, and the current rules for learning uncommon spells have a deep imbalance built into them. Right now they're tied to an intelligence-based skill for the arcane and occult lists and a wisdom-based skill for the divine and nature lists, with very high DC's and very draconian rules for retrying. This puts charisma-based casters at a severe disadvantage in games where uncommon spells are generally allowed, while generally giving all casting classes the same downsides as wizards. When uncommon spells aren't actually uncommon at your table, this skews the class balance dramatically.
While there are a lot of issues with the current uncommon rules, I feel that a rather major one that needs addressing is spells. Due to the large amount of content currently labeled uncommon, it's going to see a lot of use by PC's, and the current rules for learning uncommon spells have a deep imbalance built into them. Right now they're tied to an intelligence-based skill for the arcane and occult lists and a wisdom-based skill for the divine and nature lists, with very high DC's and very draconian rules for retrying. This puts charisma-based casters at a severe disadvantage in games where uncommon spells are generally allowed, while generally giving all casting classes the same downsides as wizards. When uncommon spells aren't actually uncommon at your table, this skews the class balance dramatically.
This does make some sense, especially as Cha casters tend to be spontaneous and they could use the help. Maybe a potential solution for that would be to allow spontaneous casters to use the downtime retraining rules (subject to normal criteria for availability of uncommon spells), allow you to make a check at spell roll modifier instead of the given skill, to learn it.
Is there a reason it can't be both? As in, rarity helps solve gaming issues as well as in-world issues and/or justifications.
Take teleport for example. Teleport can bypass travel and even some campaign arcs as a gaming table issue. In-world, it is also a spell that alters the entire setting based on its availability. Travel and trade routes get rewritten, the world economy is altered, and any powerful and/or influential individual who wants to stay alive longer than a week has to invest in some type of defense against it (which can be a massive planing pain for a GM).
And talking about anti-teleportation defense... it doesn't seem to really exist in the PF2 Playtest. There's the Consecrate ritual, but trying to ward any area of significant size requires numerous alters/shrines/deity fixtures and would have a massive yearly upkeep in cost. Even then, it looks like a heightened teleport would have a chance to overpower the ritual (unless the ritual was also heightened at great cost). As for non-religious anti-teleportation defences or rituals, it looks like there just isn't an option at all. Honestly, I'm kinda surprised Teleport isn't a rare spell in light of all this.
One thing I do really like is with how "upgrading an item's quality" is just a craft role and runes can be just be taken out of stuff you find and socketed in what you want to use, now "using grandma's old curve blade" for your entire career is now feasible. Unless you want an uncommon weapon made out of special materials, you probably don't need to buy more than one.
In any case "you know how to get your hands on Orc Necksplitters" is probably less of an issue for me than "I need to start seeding loot piles with the exotic weapon a player has decided to specialize in" was in PF1. It seems more plausibly cultural that you know how to approach certain people who know where to get unusual things than "bad guys start using Fauchards since someone took Exotic Weapon Proficiency".
One thing I do really like is with how "upgrading an item's quality" is just a craft role and runes can be just be taken out of stuff you find and socketed in what you want to use, now "using grandma's old curve blade" for your entire career is now feasible.
Can't help but be reminded of an old joke:
"This is my grandpa's axe. I changed the head three times, and the handle 12 times."
While there are a lot of issues with the current uncommon rules, I feel that a rather major one that needs addressing is spells. Due to the large amount of content currently labeled uncommon, it's going to see a lot of use by PC's, and the current rules for learning uncommon spells have a deep imbalance built into them. Right now they're tied to an intelligence-based skill for the arcane and occult lists and a wisdom-based skill for the divine and nature lists, with very high DC's and very draconian rules for retrying. This puts charisma-based casters at a severe disadvantage in games where uncommon spells are generally allowed, while generally giving all casting classes the same downsides as wizards. When uncommon spells aren't actually uncommon at your table, this skews the class balance dramatically.
The text for sorcerers says they have to have "access" to the spell. The same word is used in the Magical Crafting feat, where it merely means that someone has to cast that spell for you. I don't feel that spontaneous casters need to use the Learn An Arcane Spell action in order to learn a new spell - that is for casters with a spellbook. Spontaneous casters merely need to have direct experience of the spell.
But this could use some clarification.