I do not see the rhyme or reason behind 2e's rarity system.


General Discussion

201 to 250 of 307 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

GM OfAnything wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Also, that is not the way things break down, IME, players do not constantly come at you requesting things you have never heard of; if so, something is wrong, on several levels.
Rarity is just a default restricted list like the one you suggest handing out at session 0. With the added benefit of automatically updating with each new release.

That's a good point, it's the - if I don't agree with their default, is the problem (to start, and moving forward).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Also, that is not the way things break down, IME, players do not constantly come at you requesting things you have never heard of; if so, something is wrong, on several levels.
Rarity is just a default restricted list like the one you suggest handing out at session 0. With the added benefit of automatically updating with each new release.
That's a good point, it's the - if I don't agree with their default, is the problem (to start, and moving forward).

How is starting from a default you might disagree with any worse than starting with nothing?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Common - Available unless told otherwise

Uncommon - Ask the GM

Rare - Ask the GM so they can work it into the story later :3

Close to what we intended, but I do want to add a caveat or two...

Common - Available unless told otherwise
Uncommon - Available to specific builds, otherwise ask the GM
Rare - Given by the GM when appropriate for the story, possibly the culmination of a PC story

The thought here was

Common - 100% player agency
Uncommon - 50% player/50% GM agency
Rare - 100% GM agency

There are clearly a few of you who do not feel this system is necessary and that is great! You have clearly identified the problem and have taken steps to fix it in your games (or not if you are OK with open access). While that works for you, it has been identified as a huge problem for many GMs and something that a simple tool like this might do wonders to help fix. If you don't need it, just like any other rule in the game, you can ignore it, but this is one that I feel very strongly about including the in game.

The problem is there is no such thing as 50/50 agency. If it is only with GM permission it is still 100% GM agency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
The problem is there is no such thing as 50/50 agency. If it is only with GM permission it is still 100% GM agency.

But there are feats and class options which give access to uncommon things, so by taking those options the player gains access to them, without needing to ask the GM. Like "Should I spend an ancestry feat on Weapon Familiarity" is 100% player agency.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
The problem is there is no such thing as 50/50 agency. If it is only with GM permission it is still 100% GM agency.
But there are feats and class options which give access to uncommon things, so by taking those options the player gains access to them, without needing to ask the GM. Like "Should I spend an ancestry feat on Weapon Familiarity" is 100% player agency.

It says you gain access to the weapon. Not that you Have the weapon. You still have to pay for it with starting coin and this can lead to the GM going, "No, no one sells it or knows how to forge it."

Now that's a bad GM no matter how they excuse it but it's possible. I can pick a feat that tells the GM "I want this for my character" but it's still on the GM to let you.

I suppose we can change it to work a bit like Hierloom weapon which flat out says you have it or one of those Prepared traits that give more gold or supplies


Here is another example of how the rarity system can be quite strange: Gray Maiden plate armor. How exactly does it fit into the rarity system as it currently stand?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Also, that is not the way things break down, IME, players do not constantly come at you requesting things you have never heard of; if so, something is wrong, on several levels.
Rarity is just a default restricted list like the one you suggest handing out at session 0. With the added benefit of automatically updating with each new release.
That's a good point, it's the - if I don't agree with their default, is the problem (to start, and moving forward).
How is starting from a default you might disagree with any worse than starting with nothing?

Sets up unnecessary and potentially obnoxious expectations in players.


Meraki wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Personally, if Teleportation was commonplace in my campaign, I'd figure anti-teleportation measures would develop pretty quickly to counteract its use. That wouldn't be because I was intimidated (or lazy or vindictive or whatever), it would just seem a necessity. It is why I actually do prefer a rarity system because if players attain something of that nature, it *will* feel significant and will make their characters unique and more noteworthy because if it.
While I don't disagree, I feel like "common options for PCs to take" and "common for the average person in the setting to have access to" are (or can be, at least) different definitions.

This is the one thing I think should be stressed when explaining the rarity system to the new GMs. PCs are extraordinary even when compared to other people of their class in the setting.

I believe that it needs to be told that most of the uncommon spells are ok for PC to have (we went through several editions with a lot of them) it's just they can have extended implications for the setting and the adventure. And I think if devs add something like tags to uncommon spells to define for what reason are they uncommon, we can have new GMs allow old players things without too much hassle.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

One interesting aspect of the rarity is the player-DM relationship that it brings to the forefront.

Based on a lot of what I read above, it seems like players (and some DMs, I am sure) believe that material that's in a book should first be considered universally available to their characters - they don't want "DM approval" to be a part of the game.

I've always played and DMed with the thought that everything automatically is under the blanket of DM approval, but more often sort of a background thought than one that requires such active interaction. Then again, the campaigns I have been a part of (on both sides of the table) usually evolve naturally so theirs no need to have these extensive lists of what's available for all levels as some suggest - we cross those bridges as we reach them.

Hopefully, most campaigns operate with player-DM cooperation and trust. In imaginary worlds with impossible actions, the only thing that's real is the friendships and real-life fellowships that RPGs create.


ShadeRaven wrote:

One interesting aspect of the rarity is the player-DM relationship that it brings to the forefront.

Based on a lot of what I read above, it seems like players (and some DMs, I am sure) believe that material that's in a book should first be considered universally available to their characters - they don't want "DM approval" to be a part of the game.

I've always played and DMed with the thought that everything automatically is under the blanket of DM approval, but more often sort of a background thought than one that requires such active interaction. Then again, the campaigns I have been a part of (on both sides of the table) usually evolve naturally so theirs no need to have these extensive lists of what's available for all levels as some suggest - we cross those bridges as we reach them.

Hopefully, most campaigns operate with player-DM cooperation and trust. In imaginary worlds with impossible actions, the only thing that's real is the friendships and real-life fellowships that RPGs create.

Yeah, it's a shame, but I see the reason: control freak/stonewalling DMs have made it an unpleasant experience for some. So, you have two potentially bad things; mean-spirited, egomaniacal DMs, and overly entitled, selfish players.

I think once the group agrees to the world/campaign, session 0 and all that (omissions, alterations, additions, etc), they should stick to that.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Meraki wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Personally, if Teleportation was commonplace in my campaign, I'd figure anti-teleportation measures would develop pretty quickly to counteract its use. That wouldn't be because I was intimidated (or lazy or vindictive or whatever), it would just seem a necessity. It is why I actually do prefer a rarity system because if players attain something of that nature, it *will* feel significant and will make their characters unique and more noteworthy because if it.
While I don't disagree, I feel like "common options for PCs to take" and "common for the average person in the setting to have access to" are (or can be, at least) different definitions.

Average person? No, they aren't teleporting of getting major magic healing, Kings, Nobles and the rich? They should be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Yeah, it's a shame, but I see the reason: control freak/stonewalling DMs have made it an unpleasant experience for some. So, you have two potentially bad things; mean-spirited, egomaniacal DMs, and overly entitled, selfish players.

I think once the group agrees to the world/campaign, session 0 and all that (omissions, alterations, additions, etc), they should stick to that.

I did have a Ravenloft DM (nice guy outside of the game) who literally took the approach some do here: His goal was to defeat us using what he thought of as relatively fair encounters and setting appropriate obstacles.

And boy was he successful.

Except for his wife, I was the only person to ever reach level 5 (with an ultra-protective, sanctuary cleric) in that campaign (she made 8). Unfortunately, it made us players feel like he would double-down on his aggressive approach when we had some notable successes - as if we somehow offended the Lords of Ravenloft so they'd be even more focused on destroying us.

Unfortunately, it was taxing and sometimes outright discouraging. I lasted just about a 18 months before the toll and constant frustration at seeing characters die had me bow out of the campaign.

I suppose that if I thought the DM was against me a game, I might consider any restrictions on character development or magic availability to be just one more way he or she was trying to "defeat" me.

Definitely not my style nor one I would care to be a player in.

It really is a shame, as you said Vic, that some players have had their experience soured in what I think is a wonderful social game. RPGs have blessed me with many friends that have lasted a lifetime.


ShadeRaven wrote:
It really is a shame, as you said Vic, that some players have had their experience soured in what I think is a wonderful social game. RPGs have blessed me with many friends that have lasted a lifetime.

Yeah, sounds like you had a total crap experience, good on you for sticking out as long as you did, I would have bailed very soon after that sort of approach from a DM. If I get a whiff of an adversarial attitude, from anyone, my interest disappears.

I also don't like the attitude I have heard/read of, where players demand to play races, classes, etc, that are inappropriate for the setting, then blame the DM for being an uncreative and controlling meanie for not allowing their warforged ninja/occultist in a low-magic S&S campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Yeah, sounds like you had a total crap experience, good on you for sticking out as long as you did, I would have bailed very soon after that sort of approach from a DM. If I get a whiff of an adversarial attitude, from anyone, my interest disappears.

I also don't like the attitude I have heard/read of, where players demand to play races, classes, etc, that are inappropriate for the setting, then blame the DM for being an uncreative and controlling meanie for not allowing their warforged ninja/occultist in a low-magic S&S campaign.

There are two parts to my sticking it out: 1) I had gone about 8 years since the last time I had been a player, DMing only. Just wanted to RP without the tax. 2) He was actually a gifted narrator and wonderful setting builder. I really enjoyed the presentation, just hated the application.

The angry player attitude is so far departed from my experience, and I have literally DMed hundreds of campaigns, one-offs, D&D Encounters, and conventions combined. But a lot of that came back before the internet became what it is now (in fact, before there was an internet the public could reach at all).


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Meraki wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Personally, if Teleportation was commonplace in my campaign, I'd figure anti-teleportation measures would develop pretty quickly to counteract its use. That wouldn't be because I was intimidated (or lazy or vindictive or whatever), it would just seem a necessity. It is why I actually do prefer a rarity system because if players attain something of that nature, it *will* feel significant and will make their characters unique and more noteworthy because if it.
While I don't disagree, I feel like "common options for PCs to take" and "common for the average person in the setting to have access to" are (or can be, at least) different definitions.
Average person? No, they aren't teleporting of getting major magic healing, Kings, Nobles and the rich? They should be.

In before "That Guy" suggests robbing a rich person/king for their secrets of teleportation.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So as I see it the basic problem with narrative powerful options like "let's just teleport into the vault" or "let's find out whodunit with our truth compelling spell" is that when in play the GM needs to figure out how to stop all those things from working after they figure out all the various things which can short-circuit the narrative before they can run a heist or a murder mystery.

It's not even a question of railroading since "we cast the 'I Win' spell and win" isn't satisfying for the players either. So I feel like it's good to have those things in a "ask the GM" space (or to create one so I can put them there) rather than asking for wards all over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadeRaven wrote:
The angry player attitude is so far departed from my experience, and I have literally DMed hundreds of campaigns, one-offs, D&D Encounters, and conventions combined. But a lot of that came back before the internet became what it is now (in fact, before there was an internet the public could reach at all).

Ah, yes, the entitlement movement I have heard/read about seems to have really surged during 3.5's run.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure Rarity has any use for players or GMs. The initial description made it sound like the rules were instituted for Paizo's convenience.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:
I'm not sure Rarity has any use for players or GMs. The initial description made it sound like the rules were instituted for Paizo's convenience.

It reads like it's from a PFS starter kit really.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Crayon wrote:
I'm not sure Rarity has any use for players or GMs. The initial description made it sound like the rules were instituted for Paizo's convenience.
It reads like it's from a PFS starter kit really.

I don't play PFS and I adore the concept of the Rarity system.

I've wanted something like this for as long as I've played (back in 3rd), rather than the "well this thing isn't standard to stock fantasy Europe so it's Exotic and requires a Feat and..."

I love it even more for dealing with stuff like blood money which necessitate being lower level to function in their purposes but still shouldn't be falling into every Wizard's hands on level up.


I have always hate hate hated playing in the sort of game where players act as if their characters have a copy of the Core Rulebook or Equipment Guide in their backpack, and use it as a shopping catalog.
"Have you guys seen this Awesome Magic Item on page 144? It's only 50k and I'm buying it when we get to town."
Because as soon as the player bought the book, the character instantly knew about all the items in it, and obviously the magic walmart vendor in town has it for the listed rulebook price.
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

I'm not sure what my point is. But I like the rarity system.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I have always hate hate hated playing in the sort of game where players act as if their characters have a copy of the Core Rulebook or Equipment Guide in their backpack, and use it as a shopping catalog.

"Have you guys seen this Awesome Magic Item on page 144? It's only 50k and I'm buying it when we get to town."
Because as soon as the player bought the book, the character instantly knew about all the items in it, and obviously the magic walmart vendor in town has it for the listed rulebook price.
Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

I'm not sure what my point is. But I like the rarity system.

You are play(test)ing a game where an entire suite of magical items is treated as nigh mandatory. From there, the question becomes do you want PCs trying to number up their numbers as much as possible, or do you want them to diversify with some more interesting magical bits and bobs? Because easy access to magic items is basically mandated by the system math. Restricting the interesting stuff just means moar numbers, because you have to hand those out unless you like comically party tailored loot drops, or you feel like reverse engineering the system math to remove the item treadmill and coming up with an alternate system for extra damage dice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Crayon wrote:
I'm not sure Rarity has any use for players or GMs. The initial description made it sound like the rules were instituted for Paizo's convenience.
It reads like it's from a PFS starter kit really.

I don't play PFS and I adore the concept of the Rarity system.

I've wanted something like this for as long as I've played (back in 3rd), rather than the "well this thing isn't standard to stock fantasy Europe so it's Exotic and requires a Feat and..."

I love it even more for dealing with stuff like blood money which necessitate being lower level to function in their purposes but still shouldn't be falling into every Wizard's hands on level up.

Do you PLAY something besides stock fantasy Europe? I actually am curious as to how many people play Non Fantasy Europe. I also wonder how hard it is for players to understand that "This isn't fantasy Europe, some things will be different.". Example, I'm running Mummy's Mask, so it's Osirion. Not one knight or old man wizard among the group.

And again with the BLOOD MONEY insanity. No, listen, whoever comes to you with Blood Money needs a talking to. They either OWN the book and should know it's a Campaign spell, or they're browsing online. And the Online Sources should have near the top that it comes from a Campaign book, in BOLD.

Rarity system or not; spells listed in AP/Campaign books should have a "This is Campaign specific" tag next to it.

I'm sorry, I still don't like Rarity. I find it like Bulk. It's okay, it's a tool, and it's board enough to get the job done. But parts of it start cracking when you look closer and I don't want to deal with those cracks at every table.


Snowblind wrote:
Restricting the interesting stuff just means more numbers, because you have to hand those out unless you like comically party tailored loot drops, or you feel like reverse engineering the system math to remove the item treadmill and coming up with an alternate system for extra damage dice.

I'm not against characters having the stuff. They should find and have and make all sorts of stuff.

I just dislike the attitude that I laid out.
When GMing, I make tables of large percentage of common stuff is just available, and then other items are available, and I update the lists.
But not just shopping straight out of the Core book. I'm not playing tabletop WoW.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just because something is printed in a later splatbook doesn't mean it shouldn't be familiar, readily available in large markets, or a standard part of an adventurer's toolkit. So it's good to have a metric for that which is not "what book is that from?"

Being annoyed by rarity seems incredibly trivial since to ignore it all you have to do is declare all non-unique things to be common and you're done.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
Do you PLAY something besides stock fantasy Europe?
Yes.
Quote:
or they're browsing online. And the Online Sources should have near the top that it comes from a Campaign book, in BOLD.
They should but they don't. It's just another spell tossed with the others in presentation. Most don't pick up on how disruptive it is until it comes into play.
Quote:
Rarity system or not; spells listed in AP/Campaign books should have a "This is Campaign specific" tag next to it.
I wouldn't mind a Regional/Abundance addendum added to the Rarity system.
Quote:
I find it like Bulk.
Rarity is actually useful.
Quote:
But parts of it start cracking when you look closer and I don't want to deal with those cracks at every table.

What's cracking?


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Meraki wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Personally, if Teleportation was commonplace in my campaign, I'd figure anti-teleportation measures would develop pretty quickly to counteract its use. That wouldn't be because I was intimidated (or lazy or vindictive or whatever), it would just seem a necessity. It is why I actually do prefer a rarity system because if players attain something of that nature, it *will* feel significant and will make their characters unique and more noteworthy because if it.
While I don't disagree, I feel like "common options for PCs to take" and "common for the average person in the setting to have access to" are (or can be, at least) different definitions.

At first level, the two options should be close to the same. At higher levels, price and other factors should give PCs access to things that a first level commoner could not possibly afford or perhaps even know about.

Of course, I can see at least one case where the rarity system could be used to make the players feel really good. Let's say that a PC wizard invents a new spell or magic item. It would be very appropriate for the GM to designate the spell or item as "rare" and rule that the only way to get it would be from the PC wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
Of course, I can see at least one case where the rarity system could be used to make the players feel really good. Let's say that a PC wizard invents a new spell or magic item. It would be very appropriate for the GM to designate the spell or item as "rare" and rule that the only way to get it would be from the PC wizard.

I love allow players to be agents for their own discoveries. They are encouraged to be unique in my campaigns. Some take advantage of it, some don't.

However, what I don't understand is why players feel that they are the only one allowed to be unique or have access to the rare and wonderful. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's automatically available to the players. Maybe that Teleportation Spell or Rod of Lordly Might is unique to some other wizard or craftsman, and they guard that knowledge just as the players do their own inventions.

Players probably wouldn't feel so special if I had them spend time and coin to design a new spell or craft a new item only to walk into the next dungeon and have 4 shamans all now using it against them.

That's where my confusion comes in. It's okay to limit availability of the rare and wondrous. I think my players even feel more satisfied and finding that rare thing when they had to work hard and overcome obstacles to achieve it.

Is it really that fun to have everything automatically given?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Meraki wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Personally, if Teleportation was commonplace in my campaign, I'd figure anti-teleportation measures would develop pretty quickly to counteract its use. That wouldn't be because I was intimidated (or lazy or vindictive or whatever), it would just seem a necessity. It is why I actually do prefer a rarity system because if players attain something of that nature, it *will* feel significant and will make their characters unique and more noteworthy because if it.
While I don't disagree, I feel like "common options for PCs to take" and "common for the average person in the setting to have access to" are (or can be, at least) different definitions.
Average person? No, they aren't teleporting of getting major magic healing, Kings, Nobles and the rich? They should be.

And they frequently do, but they aren't the majority of the people in the setting either. Private jets and fancy home security systems exist in our world, but I'd bet most of us don't know anyone with either.


Rysky wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Crayon wrote:
I'm not sure Rarity has any use for players or GMs. The initial description made it sound like the rules were instituted for Paizo's convenience.
It reads like it's from a PFS starter kit really.

I don't play PFS and I adore the concept of the Rarity system.

I've wanted something like this for as long as I've played (back in 3rd), rather than the "well this thing isn't standard to stock fantasy Europe so it's Exotic and requires a Feat and..."

I love it even more for dealing with stuff like blood money which necessitate being lower level to function in their purposes but still shouldn't be falling into every Wizard's hands on level up.

Doesn't actually work by RAW. There are no provisions to be able to declare a Common item Uncommon, such as you might want to do with longswords in Minkai.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
Meraki wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Personally, if Teleportation was commonplace in my campaign, I'd figure anti-teleportation measures would develop pretty quickly to counteract its use. That wouldn't be because I was intimidated (or lazy or vindictive or whatever), it would just seem a necessity. It is why I actually do prefer a rarity system because if players attain something of that nature, it *will* feel significant and will make their characters unique and more noteworthy because if it.
While I don't disagree, I feel like "common options for PCs to take" and "common for the average person in the setting to have access to" are (or can be, at least) different definitions.

At first level, the two options should be close to the same. At higher levels, price and other factors should give PCs access to things that a first level commoner could not possibly afford or perhaps even know about.

Of course, I can see at least one case where the rarity system could be used to make the players feel really good. Let's say that a PC wizard invents a new spell or magic item. It would be very appropriate for the GM to designate the spell or item as "rare" and rule that the only way to get it would be from the PC wizard.

Yeah, I agree. "I can't afford this" is a perfectly legitimate limiter, as is "not every town contains the entirety of published equipment." I was more talking about how access to magic like that changes the assumptions of the setting as a whole.

I'd be totally on board with the rarity system being used for something like your example (or, conversely, for a spell invented by an NPC wizard that the PCs have to go to them to learn).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Rarity also offers a nice way to implement errata.

Instead of radically revamping items that are arguably unbalanced, and angering those who were fine with them, they can just make the errata “this item is now uncommon/rare”, and let DMs make the decision about whether to make them available or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Restricting the interesting stuff just means more numbers, because you have to hand those out unless you like comically party tailored loot drops, or you feel like reverse engineering the system math to remove the item treadmill and coming up with an alternate system for extra damage dice.

I'm not against characters having the stuff. They should find and have and make all sorts of stuff.

I just dislike the attitude that I laid out.
When GMing, I make tables of large percentage of common stuff is just available, and then other items are available, and I update the lists.
But not just shopping straight out of the Core book. I'm not playing tabletop WoW.

strangely I have the opposite impression, rarity sounds like the white/green/blue/purple dynamic of cRPGs with rarity determines power or utility.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So as I see it the basic problem with narrative powerful options like "let's just teleport into the vault" or "let's find out whodunit with our truth compelling spell" is that when in play the GM needs to figure out how to stop all those things from working after they figure out all the various things which can short-circuit the narrative before they can run a heist or a murder mystery.

It's not even a question of railroading since "we cast the 'I Win' spell and win" isn't satisfying for the players either. So I feel like it's good to have those things in a "ask the GM" space (or to create one so I can put them there) rather than asking for wards all over.

having a specialist actually work is satisfying, if a player has invested in being good at solving mysteries negating that is as annoying and rail roaded as all enemies suddenly having fire resistance, or immunity to critical hits is for other builds (WebDM did an episode about this actually, it's worth a look), also working round most divination is entirely possible, as is putting people beyond the reach of resurrection or speak with dead.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Meraki wrote:
Rob Godfrey wrote:
Meraki wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Personally, if Teleportation was commonplace in my campaign, I'd figure anti-teleportation measures would develop pretty quickly to counteract its use. That wouldn't be because I was intimidated (or lazy or vindictive or whatever), it would just seem a necessity. It is why I actually do prefer a rarity system because if players attain something of that nature, it *will* feel significant and will make their characters unique and more noteworthy because if it.
While I don't disagree, I feel like "common options for PCs to take" and "common for the average person in the setting to have access to" are (or can be, at least) different definitions.
Average person? No, they aren't teleporting of getting major magic healing, Kings, Nobles and the rich? They should be.
And they frequently do, but they aren't the majority of the people in the setting either. Private jets and fancy home security systems exist in our world, but I'd bet most of us don't know anyone with either.

that is a cost restriction, not a rarity restriction.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I can say in favor of the rarity system judging by past experience, it could be a Godsend to inexperienced GMs. Scenarios like "I set up this cool cross-country journey to this place the players need to go with cool encounters and cities to stay in and sidequests but they just got x level spells and now they can just teleport there instantly and the only way to avoid it is to tell them, in or out of character, that they need to not or can't do that because reasons." can very well happen to inexperienced GMs who don't know all the things magic can do or didn't quite put two and two together. So regardless of any questionable current examples, I really like the rarity system for how it can help newer GMs potentially.

I also love the system for my own personal use, even if I tend to be lenient in allowing Uncommon stuff.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I love to include scrolls and spell books for Wizards in treasure finds.
If some spells are considered rare (or maybe even unheard of), it can be exciting for the PC wizard to run across this in a dragon's hoard.
I love the idea of the rarity system for everything from treasure to monster knowledge DCs. But, as always, people are free to not use it, I suppose.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Porridge wrote:

Rarity also offers a nice way to implement errata.

Instead of radically revamping items that are arguably unbalanced, and angering those who were fine with them, they can just make the errata “this item is now uncommon/rare”, and let DMs make the decision about whether to make them available or not.

If an item or a spell is too powerful for its level, then it should be made a higher level. I do not see the point in going, "Eh, just leave it to the GM to rebalance."


THe only think that irks me with Uncommon is that it is only one character choice away. If Teleport is supposed to be uncommon, why are Clerics of Nethys not uncommon?
And what I feel makes this worse is, if my GM allows teleport to be Chosen anyway, why would I ever Play a Cleric of Nethys?

So it goes back to me making a list of what I want in the game or not, because a lot of the uncommon stuff is really common, as my Players certainly don't check which of the spells on their bloodline/deity/School list are uncommon and which aren't.

Powers have already been adressed, as the will move out of the spell section, therefore they don't Need the Uncommon tag anyway.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RazarTuk wrote:
Rysky wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Crayon wrote:
I'm not sure Rarity has any use for players or GMs. The initial description made it sound like the rules were instituted for Paizo's convenience.
It reads like it's from a PFS starter kit really.

I don't play PFS and I adore the concept of the Rarity system.

I've wanted something like this for as long as I've played (back in 3rd), rather than the "well this thing isn't standard to stock fantasy Europe so it's Exotic and requires a Feat and..."

I love it even more for dealing with stuff like blood money which necessitate being lower level to function in their purposes but still shouldn't be falling into every Wizard's hands on level up.

Doesn't actually work by RAW. There are no provisions to be able to declare a Common item Uncommon, such as you might want to do with longswords in Minkai.

Uh, I was talking about the exact opposite of that.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Colette Brunel wrote:
Porridge wrote:

Rarity also offers a nice way to implement errata.

Instead of radically revamping items that are arguably unbalanced, and angering those who were fine with them, they can just make the errata “this item is now uncommon/rare”, and let DMs make the decision about whether to make them available or not.

If an item or a spell is too powerful for its level, then it should be made a higher level. I do not see the point in going, "Eh, just leave it to the GM to rebalance."

Or we let people have cool stuff from time to time, whether it be spells or abilities or artifacts.

And the Rarity system is doing the very exact opposite of "leave it to the GM to rebalance".


Rysky wrote:
And the Rarity system is doing the very exact opposite of "leave it to the GM to rebalance".

Yes, and that is the problem for me; not really into other people telling me what is common, uncommon, rare, and unique in my campaigns. Though, as they want to infuse PF2 with more Golarion, I guess the rarity system is to be considered for Golarion campaigns.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Rysky wrote:
And the Rarity system is doing the very exact opposite of "leave it to the GM to rebalance".
Yes, and that is the problem for me; not really into other people telling me what is common, uncommon, rare, and unique in my campaigns. Though, as they want to infuse PF2 with more Golarion, I guess the rarity system is to be considered for Golarion campaigns.

Which is really a conundrum, isn't it?

If everything is common because there is no rarity system, well then DMs that don't want that have to tackle that mess of either having to invent it themselves or deal with the fallout of having players gripe about not allowing what's clearly core to the rules.

But if you put in a rarity system, the gripes as to how it's implemented, how unfair it is, or how it forces GMs to make decisions they didn't want to deal with come to the forefront for those who want something different.

I can only speak for myself: I prefer to seeing restrictions and then finding ways to be the benevolent GM who gives players an avenue to achieving what they want that isn't normally readily available, than having to restrict access to what the player believes the rules say is unconstrained.

201 to 250 of 307 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / I do not see the rhyme or reason behind 2e's rarity system. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.