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


General Discussion

251 to 300 of 307 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

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.

Well, unless someone has a brilliant approach I haven't heard of, you either get something like this, where other people tell you what's common, uncommon, rare, or unique in your campaign or the previous default, where they tell you it's all common. (Or at least common based on level and price.)

Obviously, you could impose rarity on things of your choice before and equally obviously you can shift things around now. Now you've got a rules framework for doing so, which seems to me to be a good thing.


ShadeRaven wrote:
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.

Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?


thejeff wrote:
Obviously, you could impose rarity on things of your choice before and equally obviously you can shift things around now. Now you've got a rules framework for doing so, which seems to me to be a good thing.

Okay, that sounds reasonable, as long as the players are on board, and not feeling entitled to what the book says is Common.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
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.
Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?

House-rule? probably give the reasoning behind it to the payer.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
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.
Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?

It’s not that complicated as a GM you inform your players what isn’t allowed at your table ahead of time, if you fail to do that and they build a character without that information then tough luck, the players shouldn’t have to play a guessing game as to what they can have, as for having a rarity list that’s also simple I want a concrete list with tables saying how those items/spells would be acquired if one is to be included, I don’t want everything that’s not listed as common to rest on the GM’s whimsy because that leads to some GM’s allowing anything anyway and others just banning things just because.

A player should know ahead of schedule what they can and cannot have in a campaign last thing you want is to build a necromancer and then be told you can’t have raise dead after the fact JUST BECAUSE.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
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.
Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?
House-rule? probably give the reasoning behind it to the payer.

I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Vic Ferrari wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
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.
Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?

Heh. That's a bit unfair, but I have always approached GMing as a cooperative rather than a dictatorial. I know for a fact others are quite self-satisfied with the iron hand they run their tables with.

You put me in a difficult position, Vic. I fear you'll easily discount my approach as "self-congratulatory" because the simple truth is that my players trust my judgment because I rarely rule without making it a shared decision.

I once ran a campaign set in a post-apocalyptic fantasy setting where so much was lost where arcane and divine magic, spellcasting, and so much more was generally lost to ravages of the Dragon Lord Wars. Centuries later, the small sanctuary where a small packet of the surviving races resided was the setting to a new campaign. Players were going to have to work very hard at discovering the lost gods, rediscover the arcane, and so forth.

It was extremely successful and even made it's way off of the tabletop. What made it works, though, was the trust and shared experience that everyone should feel at our tables.

So, if I am running a campaign and I decide Identify or Detect Magic isn't suitable for thematic reasons, there's no outcry or fuming at my unfairness. And if a player had a character concept that was particularly geared towards a feature I was restricting, there would be no problem in sitting down and discussing whether or not there's an avenue that would still work for both the campaign setting and the character.

It really isn't that hard from my experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tezmick wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
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.
Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?
House-rule? probably give the reasoning behind it to the payer.
I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.

It would not be a problem at all for my group. My reasoning would be reasonable...

Also screaming at each other for not being able to have what they want? do you play with 8 year olds?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
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.
Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?
House-rule? probably give the reasoning behind it to the payer.

Aaaaaand we're back to scrapping the rarity system and having GM's simply decide what they want in their game on a case by case basis.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Tezmick wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
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.
Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?
House-rule? probably give the reasoning behind it to the payer.
I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.

It would not be a problem at all for my group. My reasoning would be reasonable...

Also screaming at each other for not being able to have what they want? do you play with 8 year olds?

I run games at a store often with people I am unfamiliar with of varying ages, I make a point to set my standards early and while in YOUR experience it’s not an issue it can be especially when you’re dealing with different kinds of people from different walks of life not everyone you meet is as happy and I’ve met more than a few players who believe that unless a book states you can’t have a spell or particular class feature or archetype then it’s good to go, items are a lot easier to argue you can just say they don’t have what they’re looking for.

In short I like rules because most players read them and accept them, the minute it becomes GM fiat I open myself up to potential problems, i also believe that a set rarity sytem would be better for new GM’s since it takes the weight off them deciding what is and isn’t allowed.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Tezmick wrote:
I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.

It always amazes me how many people have terrible experiences with this game. I don't think I've encountered anything close to this since I was 12 playing with friends who were from 9 to 12 themselves and we were first learning the game. It's with some chagrin we can recall all these years later how I once tore up Gary Adam's character sheet in that first campaign when he really got under my skin. lol. We sat down the next day, apologized to each other, and recreated Manar the Wizard together in a campaign group that lasted through both high school and college.

Granted, it is quite possible that some are preteen here and mature interactions are still being developed.

But I've also said before that I play at cooperative tables and favoritism is a foreign concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tezmick wrote:

I run games at a store often with people I am unfamiliar with of varying ages, I make a point to set my standards early and while in YOUR experience it’s not an issue it can be especially when you’re dealing with different kinds of people from different walks of life not everyone you meet is as happy and I’ve met more than a few players who believe that unless a book states you can’t have a spell or particular class feature or archetype then it’s good to go, items are a lot easier to argue you can just say they don’t have what they’re looking for.

In short I like rules because most players read them and accept them, the minute it becomes GM fiat I open myself up to potential problems, i also believe that a set rarity sytem would be better for new GM’s since it takes the weight off them deciding what is and isn’t allowed.

I wonder how much of the dispute here is between home games with long standing groups and store/con games with strangers.

I fully agree that the latter tend to need more explicit rules. That doesn't mean they're needed for the former.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadeRaven wrote:
Tezmick wrote:
I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.

It always amazes me how many people have terrible experiences with this game. I don't think I've encountered anything close to this since I was 12 playing with friends who were from 9 to 12 themselves and we were first learning the game. It's with some chagrin we can recall all these years later how I once tore up Gary Adam's character sheet in that first campaign when he really got under my skin. lol. We sat down the next day, apologized to each other, and recreated Manar the Wizard together in a campaign group that lasted through both high school and college.

Granted, it is quite possible that some are preteen here and mature interactions are still being developed.

But I've also said before that I play at cooperative tables and favoritism is a foreign concept.

I’m one of several GM’s at a store the big issue with arbitrary rarity is some GM’s won’t disclose or don’t get a chance to disclose how they run their games, players then turn up with characters rolled up and are told they can’t use the character they’ve brought or worse a GM will allow the character such as a gunslinger for example and then never allow the character to find more guns because they think they should be near impossible to find, only for that same player to play that same character with a different GM and get all the guns they could want.

It’s not a problem at home games where everyone knows each other but this is a new game with new rules anything that cuts down on potential rules arguments is a plus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadeRaven wrote:
Tezmick wrote:
I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.

It always amazes me how many people have terrible experiences with this game. I don't think I've encountered anything close to this since I was 12 playing with friends who were from 9 to 12 themselves and we were first learning the game. It's with some chagrin we can recall all these years later how I once tore up Gary Adam's character sheet in that first campaign when he really got under my skin. lol. We sat down the next day, apologized to each other, and recreated Manar the Wizard together in a campaign group that lasted through both high school and college.

Granted, it is quite possible that some are preteen here and mature interactions are still being developed.

But I've also said before that I play at cooperative tables and favoritism is a foreign concept.

I prefer cooperative tables, but I've wound up at others over the years. I think I've seen more actual GM favoritism than screaming accusations of it. Sometimes bad enough that I've moved on from that group. Other times there were enough other things I liked about the game.

It's not all preteens. The hobby has a reputation that's not entirely undeserved for low social skills, poorly socialized people.

And this can show up in store games too: especially when there are a couple people who always play together and some random strangers added into the mix. Even without blatant favoritism, the friends will know what kinds of approaches will work on the GM and get them to agree to the stuff they want, while the strangers will be fumbling in the dark.


thejeff wrote:
ShadeRaven wrote:
Tezmick wrote:
I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.

It always amazes me how many people have terrible experiences with this game. I don't think I've encountered anything close to this since I was 12 playing with friends who were from 9 to 12 themselves and we were first learning the game. It's with some chagrin we can recall all these years later how I once tore up Gary Adam's character sheet in that first campaign when he really got under my skin. lol. We sat down the next day, apologized to each other, and recreated Manar the Wizard together in a campaign group that lasted through both high school and college.

Granted, it is quite possible that some are preteen here and mature interactions are still being developed.

But I've also said before that I play at cooperative tables and favoritism is a foreign concept.

I prefer cooperative tables, but I've wound up at others over the years. I think I've seen more actual GM favoritism than screaming accusations of it. Sometimes bad enough that I've moved on from that group. Other times there were enough other things I liked about the game.

It's not all preteens. The hobby has a reputation that's not entirely undeserved for low social skills, poorly socialized people.

And this can show up in store games too: especially when there are a couple people who always play together and some random strangers added into the mix. Even without blatant favoritism, the friends will know what kinds of approaches will work on the GM and get them to agree to the stuff they want, while the strangers will be fumbling in the dark.

Yes I’ve seen both sides with players using a lack of rules to argue and GM’s using it as a mallet on players they dislike, some call it the risk of playing in a public space but I would personally prefer a system where neither problem makes an appearance.


Rysky wrote:
RazarTuk wrote:
Rysky wrote:


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.

I consider it two sides of the same coin. If katanas are the Tien version of longswords, and longswords are the Avistani version of katanas, it would make sense for katanas to be common in Tian Xia and longswords to be uncommon, while the opposite would be true in Avistan.

EDIT: In other words, rarity as currently implemented means items from Standard Pseudo-Medieval European Fantasy Setting are always common, even in Standard Fantasy Asian Setting, while items common in the latter can be made uncommon in the former.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RazarTuk wrote:
Rysky wrote:
RazarTuk wrote:
Rysky wrote:


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.

I consider it two sides of the same coin. If katanas are the Tien version of longswords, and longswords are the Avistani version of katanas, it would make sense for katanas to be common in Tian Xia and longswords to be uncommon, while the opposite would be true in Avistan.

EDIT: In other words, rarity as currently implemented means items from Standard Pseudo-Medieval European Fantasy Setting are always common, even in Standard Fantasy Asian Setting, while items common in the latter can be made uncommon in the former.

Have they said that katanas will be just be longswords?

And that's the entire point of a rarity system, rather than locking things behind feats. You as the Storyteller can indeed switch the Rarity of an item depending on circumstances. Playing in Tien? Katanas Common. Playing in Alkenstar? Firearms Common.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
RazarTuk wrote:
Rysky wrote:
RazarTuk wrote:
Rysky wrote:


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.

I consider it two sides of the same coin. If katanas are the Tien version of longswords, and longswords are the Avistani version of katanas, it would make sense for katanas to be common in Tian Xia and longswords to be uncommon, while the opposite would be true in Avistan.

EDIT: In other words, rarity as currently implemented means items from Standard Pseudo-Medieval European Fantasy Setting are always common, even in Standard Fantasy Asian Setting, while items common in the latter can be made uncommon in the former.

Have they said that katanas will be just be longswords?

And that's the entire point of a rarity system, rather than locking things behind feats. You as the Storyteller can indeed switch the Rarity of an item depending on circumstances. Playing in Tien? Katanas Common. Playing in Alkenstar? Firearms Common.

By RAW, you can reduce the rariry of Uncommon and Rare items to Common, but there aren't any provisions for making a Common item Uncommon. By RAI, of course, you probably can. But by RAW, if it's common in Standard Fantasy Pseudo-Medieval Europe, it's common everywhere.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
RazarTuk wrote:
Rysky wrote:
RazarTuk wrote:
Rysky wrote:
RazarTuk wrote:
Rysky wrote:


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.

I consider it two sides of the same coin. If katanas are the Tien version of longswords, and longswords are the Avistani version of katanas, it would make sense for katanas to be common in Tian Xia and longswords to be uncommon, while the opposite would be true in Avistan.

EDIT: In other words, rarity as currently implemented means items from Standard Pseudo-Medieval European Fantasy Setting are always common, even in Standard Fantasy Asian Setting, while items common in the latter can be made uncommon in the former.

Have they said that katanas will be just be longswords?

And that's the entire point of a rarity system, rather than locking things behind feats. You as the Storyteller can indeed switch the Rarity of an item depending on circumstances. Playing in Tien? Katanas Common. Playing in Alkenstar? Firearms Common.

By RAW, you can reduce the rariry of Uncommon and Rare items to Common, but there aren't any provisions for making a Common item Uncommon. By RAI, of course, you probably can. But by RAW, if it's common in Standard Fantasy Pseudo-Medieval Europe, it's common everywhere.

That is an absolute non-issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Jason said a few pages ago they were going to re-examine the system and provide more codification in the final rules, which mostly solves the issue for me. If the word Uncommon is followed by a tag or line item that provides the reason for that rules element being uncommon, and they are consistent in their tagging, and they present that list of tags with some discussion near the start of the book when presenting rarity, then that makes it fairly easy for both sides to judge what they want and don't want in their game. That breakdown and discussion in the published text of the book is all I really wanted.

For example: I never play in Golarion and always use my own settings. I usually do some sort of near east or middle eastern or fusion setting, because that's where my player group's interests tend to lie more than standard medieval European fantasy. If there is a tag for Uncommon (Regional: Eastern/Tian), then I can confidently say all items with that tag are Common in my setting.

Likewise: suppose they do make the unfortunate decision to make character options that are a little too powerful for their level, with the justification that they can just make it uncommon. While that is not a design philosophy I agree with, as long as they're consistent and have a tag like Uncommon (Power Level), I have more of a basis for judging those options. I can, for instance, say that in my game options with that tag need to be run by me, but if allowed will probably have their spell level increased by +1 or item level increased by +2.

Getting that extra codification makes the GM's job easier, compared to the undefined Uncommon of the Playtest rulebook. It makes it a lot easier to decide on a broad level what things will be allowed or disallowed or moved into the "needs approval" category at the start of a campaign. That in turn makes character creation and planning easier for the players, since they'll know up front, "The GM says tags A B and C are allowed for me to build around while tags X Y and Z are off limits or rare."


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

There is a delicate balance, even if you think of yourself as a fair or flexible GM, to when you need to simply make a ruling on a rule's dispute as your interpretation of the rules as it pertains to a certain campaign and wanting to appease players.

That said, I have experienced and have read of some GMs who really do take rules very seriously and have strict letter-of-the-law play styles where everything is very black-and-white.

I am pretty sure that the Rarity system bothers some here, maybe not so much because of the concept, but that it creates area of grey. An uncertainty as to how uncommon should be used. How rare is rare? What do I do with unique?

My first impression was that it moved in a direction I liked because it gave structure, thought, and even roleplay possibilities to various aspects of the game. I might actually expand upon it so that if I decided that Necromancy was considered forbidden in the main setting of a campaign, all necromancy would move one step up in the difficulty plateau and it would require some effort to tap into that "dark magic." Etc.

I also thought it might be a tool for new GMs to think about things such as rarity and ease of access. I remember that first campaign and how Monty Haul it was...loot everywhere! This might give some structure and at least some early education on how available some things might be.

All in all, I see positives, though some refinement necessary, in the rarity system.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and their replies.

Remarking on the personal characteristics you perceive in your fellow posters is entirely extraneous and regarded as a personal attack when used as a means to belittle or refute their points or experience. This practice is entirely unnecessary to the conversation. Please remain respectful of your fellow posters, and engage in the topic of the discussion, not in personal arguments.

Please remember to flag and move on, when you find posts which need moderator attention. Thank you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't get around to this sooner. Sorry Rysky.

Rysky wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Do you PLAY something besides stock fantasy Europe?
Yes.

Cool. Just what need to be restricted and more to the point, do you HAVE to tell your players what is restricted? Or will they get the idea of the setting and probably what's expected. If you're doing homebrew, I'm not expecting a player's guide, but I would like to think I get an idea of what would be allowed or not based on just description of the setting/world.

Quote:
or they're browsing online. And the Online Sources should have near the top that it comes from a Campaign book, in BOLD.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
I wouldn't mind a Regional/Abundance addendum added to the Rarity system.

Which begs the question of how the online resources are going to tag them. But for PF1 as the example, I find that to be a failure of the online resources more than Paizo.

Quote:
I find it like Bulk.
Rarity is actually useful.

To you. Not to me.

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?

Well for one if some of these spells are so game breaking, why not just nerf them instead? Everyone and their brother complains about Teleport, just nerf it. Or remove it from Players outright, no shadow ban needed.

No they just kept the problematic spells and tagged it with a "Ask you GM" to solve all the problems. And depending on who you ask, some problematic spells made it through anyway. What spells? Again it's GM to GM. And now they have a Paizo supported way of banning them.

Do you want Uncommon or Rare spell or item? WELL I hope your GM planned a session around that! And I hope your fellow players are more than willing to help you go do your personal quest just for your gain.

And if this gets to PFS, OH WOW can I see some people getting mad. Module ends with 1 copy of "Insert Rare thing here". Who gets it and thus is able to carry that with them on their sheet going forward. Because it's Rare, you can't get it otherwise. That or everyone at PFS is buddy buddy and just game the PFS system to get the spell or item for all the characters, breaking balance entirely so what was the point of Rarity here?

I don't mind the idea, it's an attempt but I don't think it needs to be Codified. I've seen people say "Well at least now we have a baseline to work from so we don't have to relearn at every table". Yeah no, you're still going to have to relearn at every table. Because with how easy it is to instantly flip something to Rare and thus not give it to you, I can't WAIT to see the weird ban lists from table to table.

Seriously, what does Rarity SOLVE? I still see no reason to ever use it at my table, and it functions as a codified ban list which every GM is going to probably have their own personal one anyway.

*Breathes in, breathes out*

Okay. So I'll actually TRY to have some constructive advice here.

If we are going with Rarity, Paizo please, look at what you've done before. Take cues from Firearm access. 5 different yet clearly defined rarity levels and you can also maybe give advice per level as to how much to charge or how much work to do for it. I mean a sword might be common but a Coldsilver sword could be Uncommon to Scarce(No idea what you'd call between uncommon to rare so it works for now).

I believe more work should go into the system or at the very least redo the wording on it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

@Merlin: Curious, then, has every magic item, ability, spell, feature, feat, trait, archetype, item, etc., been available in your campaigns? Or is it that what you recommend is a simple black-and-white approach? Either it's in the game and readily available or don't include it at all?

I wish I had gotten into the PFS play. Some of it sounds quite intersting (although there are some indicators that there's a lot of petty interactions that happen, too). It includes at least some sort of restricted play rules, does it not? I am guessing that what makes that work is the simple hard, blanket ban on various features, classes, rules, etc.

I have no doubt that a PF2 PFS would do the same, regardless of rarity.

Dark Archive

I am seeing some people adjusting stuff just because they are on the rare list. I do think they are cool people but that can be an example to baning things just because they are on the rarity list and no other reason.

Somethings are low level because they allow you to do what you want without waiting for a year or more.

Anyway i came here to say if you dont want to be effected by rarity and uncommon lists you can make a level 9 or higher level version of your current level 1 build then give it to your gm and to your fellow party members. Your gm can look at things with a clearer wiev of things and if something is banned either just because they are on the rarity list or it is realy game breaking you will know it before the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would say, in general, that a ruleset which is helpful to some people but not others should be included in the game, because "removing or ignoring a rule" is a lot easier and has fewer potential problems than "adding a new rule we have created from whole cloth."

Particularly since ignoring a good portion of the rules in situations where they do not work for the table is extremely commonplace in this hobby. Like Pathfinder 1st edition assumes a grid and the rules require a grid, but a lot of people prefer gridless or theater of the mind style play (Horror Adventures even acknowledges this explicitly.)


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Since this thread seems to have ballooned since the last time I checked, I just want to say that I've personally had extremely positive experiences with uncommon stuff during character creation thus far in the Playtest. It typically ends up with a player asking about an option, and me as the GM saying either "Yes, but..." or "No, for this reason." Not only is it great for getting players to talk to me about options they are considering, but because I've given responses longer than just "yes/no," they've generally been satisfied with the response even when they can't take something.

Some actual examples thusfar:

  • Wayfinder: "Yes, but your character will need to be associated with the Pathfinder Society in some way as the item is related to them."
  • Sleep Poison: "No, because that item is associated with the Drow in the setting, and your gnome would not have a way to get it."
  • Ring of Wizardry: "No, because for the purposes of the Playtest I would prefer not to mess with # of prepared spells per day, so as to properly test if spellcasters have enough spells at each level."


  • MerlinCross wrote:
    And if this gets to PFS, OH WOW can I see some people getting mad. Module ends with 1 copy of "Insert Rare thing here". Who gets it and thus is able to carry that with them on their sheet going forward. Because it's Rare, you can't get it otherwise. That or everyone at PFS is buddy buddy and just game the PFS system to get the spell or item for all the characters, breaking balance entirely so what was the point of Rarity here?

    Just as a side note, unless they drastically change how PFS works, anything found as a reward in an adventure (listed on the chronicle sheet) is available for anyone who played it. If it's an item, you still have to pay for it, but you can do so at a later date.

    Yes, that means that 4 people can sit down at a table, play through the same adventure and come away with the same unique named weapon. No arguing over who gets it. It's available to all.

    That might seem weird, but it's unavoidable really. Even if you restricted it to one person from each group that plays it, you could still sit down the next day with a different group of people who all happened to have the same item, since they'd played through the scenario with different groups.


    It feels like the best thing to do then is just not offer unique items as PFS rewards. Since Unique items should generally be things like "artifacts" this shouldn't be a problem- the Pathfinder Society would like you to get your hands on something like the Lacuna Codex, but they want you to deliver it to the society where they can put it in a vault.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    It feels like the best thing to do then is just not offer unique items as PFS rewards. Since Unique items should generally be things like "artifacts" this shouldn't be a problem- the Pathfinder Society would like you to get your hands on something like the Lacuna Codex, but they want you to deliver it to the society where they can put it in a vault.

    The Organized Play team has put a lot more thought into how to coordinate a global campaign than MerlinCross. They have a decade of collective experience in offering rewards that are balanced and fun.

    Most rare items would be fine with multiple around a table. Anything truly unique would likely end up as a slotted boon with the caveat that only one person at a table could have one slotted at a time.


    1 person 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.

    I will point out that im the exact opposite.

    The moment the game starts, i plan my PC from the lvl 1 to literally atleast 10 if not higher.

    This means i expect to be able to get certain items for my build.

    Now im not saying i wont accept GM calls on what books are valid and so on, but if i plan my PC to get certain items, that werent ruled out by the GM during session 0,i 100% expect to gather them.

    If the GM tells me session 0 he drops whatever he wants and we wont be able to buy things, i will 100% make a full casters that doesnt depend much on items, cause i wont EVER make a build that depends on the GM dropping things for me.

    I kinda of despise this system, but i can kinda of accept it, as long as the GM doesnt change anything after session 0, what is valid is valid, what isnt, isnt. This way i can plan ahead.


    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    It feels like the best thing to do then is just not offer unique items as PFS rewards. Since Unique items should generally be things like "artifacts" this shouldn't be a problem- the Pathfinder Society would like you to get your hands on something like the Lacuna Codex, but they want you to deliver it to the society where they can put it in a vault.

    Well they generally don't hand out artifacts. You couldn't afford to buy it anyway.

    But there are plenty of other unique items. The only one I remember seeing in PFS (though I didn't play much) was a named sword with some special power. Not too impressive, honestly.
    It's just not a big deal. It's just part of the suspension of disbelief required for a shared campaign like that. You're all playing through many of the same adventures and then meeting up with others who've done the same things, but not with you. It makes no sense, so you just don't think about it. :)

    The broader point being, making Rare items available through a PFS scenario doesn't pose any problems of fighting over who gets it. Anyone who plays the scenario does. There may be a logistic problem of everyone wanting to play scenarios with really good stuff with the proper character, but that's different.


    I feel like there being a bunch of rare swords or w/e is fine, since you can always say that the mad divinely inspired magic smith made a batch of them before whatever terrible thing that happened to them rather than just one. All there is happens to be that one batch, but if there's 40 of them in the world, it's not the worst thing if 5 of them belong to one adventuring party. Given that there are only 40, you'll not find any at even the best supplied magic mart, but one group can stumble on a cache of them in a ruin somewhere.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

    I wonder if it's just a Pathfinder thing. The need to have specific items available for builds that are done out to level 20 or the character is ruined.

    I have to admit, this is foreign to me, but I am not a hardcore PF player. We are very casual, even if we play on a weekly basis, and I don't think anyone demands or expects any particular magic item to be automatically available to them. Honestly, I'd be surprised if more than a couple players even think beyond a level or two ahead of the 13 active in current campaigns.

    That said, I do have players who ask how they might find something and no one else at the table has a problem with the idea of individual goals as part of the team concept.

    And I really don't get hints of the must-have thinking in our 5E campaigns or in other games we play from time to time (SW:EotE, CoC, RM, SF).


    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    I feel like there being a bunch of rare swords or w/e is fine, since you can always say that the mad divinely inspired magic smith made a batch of them before whatever terrible thing that happened to them rather than just one. All there is happens to be that one batch, but if there's 40 of them in the world, it's not the worst thing if 5 of them belong to one adventuring party. Given that there are only 40, you'll not find any at even the best supplied magic mart, but one group can stumble on a cache of them in a ruin somewhere.

    Except you didn't stumble on a cache.

    You each got the only one when you fought the same one baddie who had it. On the same adventure, except all with a different group of allies.

    It's just one case of the weirdness of any shared gaming world. You're all playing the same scenarios.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    ShadeRaven wrote:

    I wonder if it's just a Pathfinder thing. The need to have specific items available for builds that are done out to level 20 or the character is ruined.

    I have to admit, this is foreign to me, but I am not a hardcore PF player. We are very casual, even if we play on a weekly basis, and I don't think anyone demands or expects any particular magic item to be automatically available to them. Honestly, I'd be surprised if more than a couple players even think beyond a level or two ahead of the 13 active in current campaigns.

    That said, I do have players who ask how they might find something and no one else at the table has a problem with the idea of individual goals as part of the team concept.

    And I really don't get hints of the must-have thinking in our 5E campaigns or in other games we play from time to time (SW:EotE, CoC, RM, SF).

    I would never entertain a player who demanded various miscellaneous magic items to achieve some build combo. If they want that kind of thing, they can take the relevant feats to make magic items themself or beg some other PC to do so. (And even then I'd still vet the combo to make sure it's not broken.)

    HOWEVER. The various "plus" items are baked into the game's math, and you need a certain amount of them to be competent. This isn't too terrible in PF1, while I wish the "required items" were "zero" I could deal with it being a few. Max bonus in all possible plus items just made you stupid good, so they weren't necessary and I generally didn't hand them out except for rare "story arc boss" rewards.

    But this problem has gotten way worse in PF2. The plus items are way more hard coded than before. You need the maximum pluses you can get as early as the game will let you get them to remain at basic competence, because they balanced all the game's math around hardcore maxed optimization. If you don't stay on the item train, your chance of success plunges into the abyss.

    That is the biggest problem that needs to be addressed.


    Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
    Vidmaster7 wrote:
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    ShadeRaven wrote:
    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.
    Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?
    House-rule? probably give the reasoning behind it to the payer.
    Aaaaaand we're back to scrapping the rarity system and having GM's simply decide what they want in their game on a case by case basis.

    Don't misconstrue what I was saying. My only point was if you want an item that isn't rare to be rare you would simply house rule the one item to be rare.


    Tezmick wrote:
    Vidmaster7 wrote:
    Tezmick wrote:
    Vidmaster7 wrote:
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    ShadeRaven wrote:
    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.
    Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?
    House-rule? probably give the reasoning behind it to the payer.
    I strongly disagree with this if there’s going to be a rarity sytem it needs set rules having to pray your GM will ok your character is honestly terrible and will just increase the likelihood of favouritism at tables, then you get players screaming why one player can have what they want and they can’t.

    It would not be a problem at all for my group. My reasoning would be reasonable...

    Also screaming at each other for not being able to have what they want? do you play with 8 year olds?

    I run games at a store often with people I am unfamiliar with of varying ages, I make a point to set my standards early and while in YOUR experience it’s not an issue it can be especially when you’re dealing with different kinds of people from different walks of life not everyone you meet is as happy and I’ve met more than a few players who believe that unless a book states you can’t have a spell or particular class feature or archetype then it’s good to go, items are a lot easier to argue you can just say they don’t have what they’re looking for.

    In short I like rules because most players read them and accept them, the minute it becomes GM fiat I open myself up to potential problems, i also believe that a set rarity sytem would be better for new...

    And if you think an item should be rare that is common? Live with it or change it?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Rysky wrote:
    RazarTuk wrote:
    Rysky wrote:
    RazarTuk wrote:
    Rysky wrote:


    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.

    I consider it two sides of the same coin. If katanas are the Tien version of longswords, and longswords are the Avistani version of katanas, it would make sense for katanas to be common in Tian Xia and longswords to be uncommon, while the opposite would be true in Avistan.

    EDIT: In other words, rarity as currently implemented means items from Standard Pseudo-Medieval European Fantasy Setting are always common, even in Standard Fantasy Asian Setting, while items common in the latter can be made uncommon in the former.

    Have they said that katanas will be just be longswords?

    And that's the entire point of a rarity system, rather than locking things behind feats. You as the Storyteller can indeed switch the Rarity of an item depending on circumstances. Playing in Tien? Katanas Common. Playing in Alkenstar? Firearms Common.

    I hope not They should be bastard swords not long sword.


    ShadeRaven wrote:

    I wonder if it's just a Pathfinder thing. The need to have specific items available for builds that are done out to level 20 or the character is ruined.

    I have to admit, this is foreign to me, but I am not a hardcore PF player. We are very casual, even if we play on a weekly basis, and I don't think anyone demands or expects any particular magic item to be automatically available to them. Honestly, I'd be surprised if more than a couple players even think beyond a level or two ahead of the 13 active in current campaigns.

    That said, I do have players who ask how they might find something and no one else at the table has a problem with the idea of individual goals as part of the team concept.

    And I really don't get hints of the must-have thinking in our 5E campaigns or in other games we play from time to time (SW:EotE, CoC, RM, SF)

    I feel the same way. 3rd Ed; with WBL, magic items shops, and easy magic item crafting, can cause a sense of assumption, expectancy and entitlement (characters are often "builds" - I like my M:tG separate from my D&D, thanks), unlike anything I had seen before. 3.5 ran with it, and PF took the ball and kept running.


    Aren't character "builds" just "I select this combination of feats, class features, etc? With no dependence on stuff you find/buy than "I will want the weapon I took weapon focus on" or "I will need to be able to cast this spell"?

    Since planning your feats or other things that are guaranteed at specific intervals is just good planning.


    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    Aren't character "builds" just "I select this combination of feats, class features, etc? With no dependence on stuff you find/buy than "I will want the weapon I took weapon focus on" or "I will need to be able to cast this spell"?

    It's usually crunching out your character to 20th-level, often with cherrypicking class levels (PrCs), feats and such, with no regard for actual character, nothing organic, at all, just a maths exercise.

    Which can be fun, it can be fun, but it's not a character... *said like Eugene Levy in America Pie*


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Vic Ferrari wrote:
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    Aren't character "builds" just "I select this combination of feats, class features, etc? With no dependence on stuff you find/buy than "I will want the weapon I took weapon focus on" or "I will need to be able to cast this spell"?

    It's usually crunching out your character to 20th-level, often with cherrypicking class levels (PrCs), feats and such, with no regard for actual character, nothing organic, at all, just a maths exercise.

    Which can be fun, it can be fun, but it's not a character... *said like Eugene Levy in America Pie*

    What is it if not a character? Using classes feats and magic items as a toolbox rather than railroad is a matter of taste and playstyle and whatever I am mechanically can have as much or as little influence on my characters deeds and personality as I want it.


    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

    @FuzzyPaws: I am going to defer here, but if you are right - that PF2 requires maximization for the math to work out - then I agree, that's a problem.

    In PF1, the disparity between optimized/min-maxed characters and just organically grown, RP concept characters could sometimes be ENORMOUS. The first attempt we made with a 5E group was a bit of a game balance disaster. I had one guy who liked to research character build and even perused through all the books reading feats, etc., to see what sounded coolest. And he came up with some amazing combos. The other two guys and the two women were just "this sounds fun" and had more whimsical ideas when building characters (one guy created the street rat who wasn't used to armor or any weapons more than a knife/dagger and a woman wanted an archer but couldn't imagine her being unattractive or unintelligent so started with only a 14 DEX, etc).

    The optimized character dominated combat... it wasn't even like, yeah, he's better.. it was, yeah.. we could skip our turns because his dude annihilates everything.

    Now this same group is testing PF2 together, and we aren't seeing that. The opti guy is digging around for the best combos, still, but we haven't seen as much evidence that this gives a significant advantage to him yet.

    That said, we have noticed what an impact at least magic weapons have on the game. Added damage dice is impactful and the difference between 2d8 and 3d8 is noticeable. If it's game breaking, I haven't encountered that yet, but maybe because I have allowed players to invest in etching runes to upgrade their current weapons.

    The additional properties on weapons, though, is what I am concerned with. The expectation of having a +2 weapon at level 8+ (ish) doesn't bother me as much as I could even take that into account in a low-magic world. It's when players insist that having a +3 Master Dancing Holy weapon or their character is invalid that would worry me.

    @Vic: PF1 seems to have set a must-optimize standard for Pathfinder campaigns, at least in the minds of many of its players - and, for all I know, that's justified because without it, characters can't be successful. We haven't played through enough material to know if the math insists on optimization as a lot of what I run is homebrewed conversions of classic AD&D modules or, like we are currently doing, the Rise of the Runelord AP that is a bit older so maybe not as deadly(?).

    If that persists in PF2, or is even worse as FuzzyPaws suggested, that would be disappointing. I'd rather see an 8th level character with a +2 weapon be a little better than normal than that same character being handicapped because it was only +1.

    251 to 300 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.