I've just gotten to take a look at the new AP, Extinction Curse part one and say the new Circus Weapons. What I didn't notice was any way to gain access to them. Did I miss it or is it not there?
If you ask your GM and he or she says yes, there's your access right there :)
I don't have one static DM, so DM fiat isn't much help. :P
But if you need Paizo to explicitly say "circus weapons are available to PCs living at a circus" or somesuch, then no, it isn't there.
Ok, cool. Wanted to make sure I hadn't missed it. Seems SUPER strange to have a whole section of the AP taken up by something no one can use [with the rules]. I'd hoped there was a note like 'circus backgrounds or archetypes have access' or something like that.
EDIT: Just thought of Human's "Unconventional Weaponry": It might work if Circus is counted as a culture, but it seems a stretch.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uncommon things being available as the GM determines to be story appropriate IS the rules. While it doesn't help your particular situation, the description "something no one can use [with the rules]" is not accurate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These weapons are also introduced in an AP where the PCs are in a circus. I would expect it to be fairly common to allow thesee weapons to be treated as available based on that alone, for groups playing Extinction Curse.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like much like "you can find a dwarf weapon if you are in a dwarf community, or you come from one" then you can find a circus weapon if you are in a circus, or you came from one.
So no one playing Extinction Curse should have trouble finding circus weapons. In a different story, they may be hard to come by.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uncommon things being available as the GM determines to be story appropriate IS the rules. While it doesn't help your particular situation, the description "something no one can use [with the rules]" is not accurate.
"Items with an uncommon rarity can be purchased only if you have special access from abilities you selected during character creation or your GM gives you permission to purchase them." So DM fiat or by the rules: I was asking for the former not the later. For instance, "Unconventional Weaponry" explicitly grants access. I don't really consider a 'rule 0' reminder to mean there shouldn't be way to use a rule elements that's explicitly written out someplace without it. [IE the 'rules 0' should be in addition to explicit access and not instead of it]
This means that as soon as the heroes defeat someone using these strange weapons, or the DM says they can be bought, then the characters are good to go based on their proficiency level, no additional training is needed.
I'm more thinking of it from the players perspective instead of the DM: what can the player to to qualify for the items? Instead of waiting for random happenstance to drop one in his lap, can he do anything to gain access past begging the Dm for it?
These weapons are also introduced in an AP where the PCs are in a circus. I would expect it to be fairly common to allow thesee weapons to be treated as available based on that alone, for groups playing Extinction Curse.
This makes it even ODDER to not mention how you gain access if it would be "fairly common" in that setting instead of betting on 'common sense' to allow it. :P
I feel like much like "you can find a dwarf weapon if you are in a dwarf community, or you come from one" then you can find a circus weapon if you are in a circus, or you came from one.
What surprises me is that there isn't the same kind of thing for them, in the AP or the player's guide.
So no one playing Extinction Curse should have trouble finding circus weapons. In a different story, they may be hard to come by.
I was thinking of a different story, but some could even run into trouble with it in that AP might find DM that'd want to see where access comes from.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if you find a GM who is unwilling to let you find Circus weapons in the Circus AP where you play Circus performers who spend most of their time with and around a Circus... you should find a different GM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This system was not built to function without GM discretion. You certainly can run a game with only published access conditions ever dictating availability, and not story notes... but there isn't much reason to.
And because that discretion is so thoroughly baked into the game, it isn't even a houserule, just the normal function of the system.
I think if you find a GM who is unwilling to let you find Circus weapons in the Circus AP where you play Circus performers who spend most of their time with and around a Circus... you should find a different GM.
It's not unusual for me to see RAW games: anything not explicit is additional time and effort to try to get in. It might seem totally obvious that it should be allowed but it's a step that I shouldn't need to take and each one of these things that's NOT written down is another conversation to have [and might dissuade the DM from accepting me if I take up too much time when others actually HAVE written rules for their character]
This system was not built to function without GM discretion. You certainly can run a game with only published access conditions ever dictating availability, and not story notes... but there isn't much reason to.
And because that discretion is so thoroughly baked into the game, it isn't even a houserule, just the normal function of the system.
Letting DM know they can use rule 0 isn't the same as expecting it instead of actual rules IMO. The more vagaries in the rules, the harder it is to move from one game to another. It's like not wanting a rule with built in 'table variance' when you play PFS all the time because you'll never know if the next table you sit down in will read it like you've built your character around. With as big as PFS is for them, I'd think they'd want it as easy as possible to take your character to whatever table you want to without having to approve various parts of your character you've assumed they should allow.
EDIT: Since we've seemed to have answered my base question, should we talk about the weapons themselves? I don't think I likely to change my view on DM fiat instead of written rules I I'll just agree to disagree with those that are fine with it: I doubt going round and round will get us anywhere.
It's not unusual for me to see RAW games
But here's the thing, by RAW uncommon means you can have it if either:
- you have a character option that grants you access.- the GM thinks it's a reasonable thing to have available to you in the given context.
If the GM ignores the 2nd one for whatever reason, what you have is not a RAW game it's a "no uncommon options are available" game. There's no removing GM disretion here because the rarity system 100% is GM discretion.
The bladed diabolo looks like a vicious yo-yo.
LOL I thought the exact thing! Octopussy had one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM ignores the 2nd one for whatever reason, what you have is not a RAW game it's a "no uncommon options are available" game.
A Dm not agreeing with the 'reasonable context' isn't 'no uncommon'. Secondly, some options ARE explicitly allowed, so it's not no uncommon: when your god's favorite weapon is a katana, you get access. When your ancestry feat gives you your racial weapons, you get them. That's EXPLICIT. 'If your DM agrees with you' isn't EXPLICIT. It's a might, not a consistent is and that's not a rule IMO, but a non-rule. "In addition, you gain access to all uncommon elf weapons" isn't "100% is GM discretion"... Also " If your deity’s favored weapon is uncommon, you also gain access to that weapon."
On to weapons again: what does everyone think of the Bladed hoop being free hand? Or Throwing knives having twin [add in Returning for fun]?
Also Juggling opens up interesting options, letting you two wield weapons and still have a free hand without needing that weapon trait. You could Juggle 2 scorpion whips [reach weapons] and keep a free hand too!
|
Graystone's Valiant Yet Doomed Crusade Against Rarity Rules, ep. 467.Well, I didn't know that this poster was a recurring feature, so to speak, so if you find my response a bit basic or on-the-nose, that's why.
Cheers
It's fine. Some people just rage against dying of the sun long after the sun is cold enough so that even Superman's "fly around it to reverse time" thing won't work. Which is pretty much the situation here, as it would require Paizo to rewrite the core rulebook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is pretty much the situation here, as it would require Paizo to rewrite the core rulebook.
Or include players options into each new book or AP. For example character ancestries and backgrounds in the CRB are primarily players options even if the GM has the final say.
Note that I am totally cool with the new AP not providing active player options to pick up the new weapons, however it would have been nice if it did.
If I want to play a dwarven wizard using a waraxe it is probably easier to stick to whatever player options the CRB is providing than ask your GM(s) for approval during each and every step of character creation.
I haven't received my copy yet, but what is so "special" about circus weapons? I would hope they aren't head and shoulders above "normal" weapons. Offhand, I would have expected them to be mostly nonlethal, poor combat choices, but perhaps with showy or extravagantly visible effects.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, no... that's the old thinking again.
The easiest, preferred and recommended solution is to talk to your GM. You never know what options you might be granted :)
While this concept might seem novel, it really isn't. Outside of Pathfinder it has been used successfully in multitudes of games for decades.
Cheers
Well, the old thinking apparently is that you probably get more options denied than granted...
The GM attitude of "it is not in the book therefore you can't have it" is still very common*, thus I always promote to put more (player) rules into each book.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many AP elements are noted Uncommon so that they cannot be used outside the AP without the GM's approval.
It would have been a boon if it was written somewhere that these AP elements should be considered Common within the AP if such is intended.
Remember that common sense is not common at all and that some players might only have a choice between convince the GM and no play. Some people do not relish having to haggle and I think it should not be held against them.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember that common sense is not common at all and that some players might only have a choice between convince the GM and no play. Some people do not relish having to haggle and I think it should not be held against them.
If your game lacks common sense, there are two possible scenarios:
1. You're the reason.
Solution: Stop being the reason.
2. The GM is the reason.
Solution: Talk this over, failing that, find a new GM. If you have no local GMs, playing online is still a better option than being stuck with a GM who lacks common sense, because if s/he does, you'll sooner or later run into other problems in this game. Problems which no rulebook could ever fix.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it weren't for the situations graystone pointed out in the CRB, where uncommon items, spells, feats, etc. were explicitly granted as a result of selecting certain backgrounds, I would agree that systemically PF2 is intended to rely primarily on GM discussion for access to uncommon traited elements.
Regarding The Show Must Go On, I am firmly in the camp feeling that the background material should have explicitly called out that players gain access to these uncommon elements as a result of their Circus backgrounds.
And I say that knowing someone will say "but talk to your GM". I have played with GMs that refuse to step outside of RAW for exactly the reasons mentioned above, particularly fear of feature bloat and power creep. Old ways die hard and if you have no reasonable access to GMs whose opinion matches yours, you're kinda hosed.
And even a reasonable GM can have a different opinion and at the end of the day if your session 0 still doesn't gain you that access, yes, you can not play with that GM.
But I have to say I find it a little aggressive to suggest you "find another GM". It trivializes the difficulty some may have in doing so.
I guess I'd like to see a little more sympathy for folks who want a little more certainty in what options they have access to. At the end of the day, we are all here because we enjoy the game and want very much to play and participate in the community.
Remember that common sense is not common at all and that some players might only have a choice between convince the GM and no play. Some people do not relish having to haggle and I think it should not be held against them.
If your game lacks common sense, there are two possible scenarios:
1. You're the reason.
Solution: Stop being the reason.
2. The GM is the reason.
Solution: Talk this over, failing that, find a new GM. If you have no local GMs, playing online is still a better option than being stuck with a GM who lacks common sense, because if s/he does, you'll sooner or later run into other problems in this game. Problems which no rulebook could ever fix.
3. You're in an organized play game, and both your and the GMs hands are tied by those rules.
Seriously I don't mind rarity rules in home games, but they are currently frustrating in organized play. If I could just spend some fame or something to get uncommon access though I would drop my complaints.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Organized Play has its own (still underdeveloped) system for this. Uncommon options will sometimes show up on chronicle sheets. I expect circus weapons will likely be on an Extinction Curse chronicle.
If they ever get their achievement point system fully functional, we'll see what else turns up there, but options being limited in Organized Play is not something new that you can blame on the rarity system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...You can discuss this all you want, Graystone, it doesn't change the fact PF2 works in a way you clearly dislike: where the game gives the authority to the GM.
I don't like the amount of Dm fiat instead of rules, no. This, however, isn't that. Plenty of actual existing rules grant access to uncommon items: look at any focus spell. I'm asking that an existing rules framework be used as intended.
You're looking for a feat (or another ability) with which you can *tell* the GM you are allowed to use circus weapons regardless of what the GM wants or needs for his campaign.
No, I'm asking that the DM be told how the game expects players to access them: the Dm has the right to allow or disallow whatever they want but if they say 'anything allowed in the rules', with access granted already, it's one less 'DM fiat' question I have to cover before we start. It just speeds things along for BOTH player and DM [at least where I play].
We have told you: "you won't find it". There simply is no rules language in The Show Must Go On that replaces a GM saying "yes".
Yet there ARE places where access to weapons IS granted: You are making it sound like I'm talking about a totally foreign concept. It's NOT.
One thing I think about, regarding intransigent GMs and rarity is that as a GM roughly half your job is "figuring out what's there" and a significant part of that revolves around items. "What items are for sale in the new town that the PCs haven't seen before" or "what items are in that pile of treasure the PCs liberated from that malefactor" etc.
There's essentially two guiding principles for "seeding items" in your game world-
1) What makes sense to find there.
2) What would the players be excited to find.
There's no point in stocking treasure hoards and market stalls with exclusively common items, since the assumption is that common items can be found more or less anywhere. Absolutely you will find some common items when looting corpses or shopping, but you build your treasure pile around the exciting items in there- which are the uncommon ones. So if you're a GM who isn't giving out uncommon options save for ones which are granted by class options, then you really aren't doing your whole job.
I mean, magic weapons are all uncommon but everybody's going to end up with a +1 sword sooner or later right? It's not really a hard question for the GM to consider "is the circus in town or not?" of their own volition. Heck, having "circus weapons" be a thing might get more GMs, of their own volition, to posit more traveling circuses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, pointing out to rarity being an issue in Pathfinder Society where by definition a whole host of things are restricted because PFS says so isn't the strongest argument ever made.
Well at least for some people consistency >>> GM fiat and for them it is the strongest argument ever made. Simply because this is rarely going to work if you ever have more than one GM.
Having sessions with both "everything is possible if it is only done in good faith" GM Sarenrae and "nope, you can't do that because the fine print says uncommon" GM Asmodeus can be quite challenging...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no point in stocking treasure hoards and market stalls with exclusively common items, since the assumption is that common items can be found more or less anywhere. Absolutely you will find some common items when looting corpses or shopping, but you build your treasure pile around the exciting items in there- which are the uncommon ones. So if you're a GM who isn't giving out uncommon options save for ones which are granted by class options, then you really aren't doing your whole job.
I mean, magic weapons are all uncommon but everybody's going to end up with a +1 sword sooner or later right? It's not really a hard question for the GM to consider "is the circus in town or not?" of their own volition. Heck, having "circus weapons" be a thing might get more GMs, of their own volition, to posit more traveling circuses.
For me, it's more 'can I start off with one' instead of 'after 7 levels I finally found my [circus weapon] and it's +1!' Being able to search through every market in 400 miles and eventually finding one after a few levels puts a damper in my character concept based on that weapon that took Acrobat or Varisian Wanderer (both grant circus lore).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think "if I can't start with the weapon I want, it's pointless" is a PF1 mindset. Since there aren't that many things in PF2 where you invest feats in a single weapon and can't use those feats with other weapons.
Like sure the fighter picks a weapon group, but if you can't find juggling clubs you can use the regular kind until you do.
I will grant, however, that "it is entirely consistent with my background to have access to this uncommon thing" is a sticky wicket in the rules. Like if you're a Dwarf Fighter with the Soldier background who was a Soldier for a Dwarven military organization, odds are you should probably have access to a Dwarven Waraxe even without the feat that guarantees access (which is otherwise useless to fighters.) Hopefully the GMG will have some insight on this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think "if I can't start with the weapon I want, it's pointless" is a PF1 mindset. Since there aren't that many things in PF2 where you invest feats in a single weapon and can't use those feats with other weapons.
I never said it was required for a mechanical reason: if I want to make an carnie fighter that uses a Bladed diabolo, it's more that I want to kick butt with a giant bladed yo-yo cuz that's cool and awesome. Holding off on the awesome for several levels is just plain less fun.
I will grant, however, that "it is entirely consistent with my background to have access to this uncommon thing" is a sticky wicket in the rules. Like if you're a Dwarf Fighter with the Soldier background who was a Soldier for a Dwarven military organization, odds are you should probably have access to a Dwarven Waraxe even without the feat that guarantees access (which is otherwise useless to fighters.) Hopefully the GMG will have some insight on this.
There is a huge difference: the dwarf has an option to make access clear and isn't required to go the "it is entirely consistent with my background to have access to this uncommon thing" route with an explicit rule "You also gain access to all uncommon dwarf weapons" in a feat. I'm not asking for anything free, just a clear path to access. Something in the GMG would be great too, but, IMO, that a totally different issue: clear access points vs guidelines for dm fiat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think "if I can't start with the weapon I want, it's pointless" is a PF1 mindset.
Character with a signature weapon is a concept as old as the genre itself.
It predates PF1 by... hundreds of years, really.
It's also not that great a lvl 1 concept. Oh you have a signature weapon, like Zorro? Well no I'm actually pretty pants with it.I think "if I can't start with the weapon I want, it's pointless" is a PF1 mindset.Character with a signature weapon is a concept as old as the genre itself.
It predates PF1 by... hundreds of years, really.
Yeah... but if it's a story I want to tell... :)
Yeah... but if it's a story I want to tell... :)It's also not that great a lvl 1 concept. Oh you have a signature weapon, like Zorro? Well no I'm actually pretty pants with it.I think "if I can't start with the weapon I want, it's pointless" is a PF1 mindset.Character with a signature weapon is a concept as old as the genre itself.
It predates PF1 by... hundreds of years, really.
Nope, you're required to use whatever weapon happen to be at hand!! I mean if you don't dumpster dive through every market how can you expect to EARN the weapon you wanted... Clearly there is a list of acceptable concepts out there I haven't seen. :P
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've loads of concepts that I recognize are higher level concepts.
I guess it boils down then to what you consider a higher level concept.
Being good at something or being able to perform specific, powerful techniques are high level concepts.
But basic things like 'is a battlemage' or 'fights with a certain kind of weapon' don't strike me as things that should be level locked, because those are things that can exist at a variety of different stages of power and ability.
Like you mentioned:
It's also not that great a lvl 1 concept. Oh you have a signature weapon, like Zorro? Well no I'm actually pretty pants with it.
But I don't see how "Zorro wields a greatpick for 6 levels until his GM lets him find the uncommon sword he built his concept around using and now is instantly an expert swordsman" is supposed to be a better story or realization of a concept than "Zorro is okay with a sword when he first starts out but gets better with it as he gains combat experience."
There is a huge difference: the dwarf has an option to make access clear and isn't required to go the "it is entirely consistent with my background to have access to this uncommon thing" route with an explicit rule "You also gain access to all uncommon dwarf weapons" in a feat. I'm not asking for anything free, just a clear path to access. Something in the GMG would be great too, but, IMO, that a totally different issue: clear access points vs guidelines for dm fiat.
But the problem is with your "literally everything about this character's background suggests they have a Dwarven Waraxe" is that to ensure that you do get a Dwarven Waraxe you have to take a feat that is otherwise kind of useless to you beyond guaranteeing access.
Just generally those "you have access to uncommon ancestral weapons" aren't useful to people who already have training from their class.
The dwarf one at least lets you make the waraxe martial instead of advanced, but Elf Rangers who want to use a curve blade are taxed with that feat even if absolutely everything in their backstory suggests "they should have one". Unless of course the GM agrees that "okay, so you were a curve blade prodigy and that earned you a scholarship at the curve blade school where you won several curve blade tournaments" should entitle you to having a curve blade (so long as you can pay for it with your starting gold) without an otherwise useless feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you have a point PossibleCabbage but I could just as easily see a GM going another way, see that the book suggests that access is worth a feat and deny natural access out of hand.
The rules definitely encourage GMs to be flexible about this, but I don't think it's that weird that some GMs will be given pause when they're presented an option the book says the player needs a feat or special permission for and be hesitant to hand it out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the problem is with your "literally everything about this character's background suggests they have a Dwarven Waraxe" is that to ensure that you do get a Dwarven Waraxe you have to take a feat that is otherwise kind of useless to you beyond guaranteeing access.
Just generally those "you have access to uncommon ancestral weapons" aren't useful to people who already have training from their class.
The dwarf one at least lets you make the waraxe martial instead of advanced, but Elf Rangers who want to use a curve blade are taxed with that feat even if absolutely everything in their backstory suggests "they should have one". Unless of course the GM agrees that "okay, so you were a curve blade prodigy and that earned you a scholarship at the curve blade school where you won several curve blade tournaments" should entitle you to having a curve blade (so long as you can pay for it with your starting gold) without an otherwise useless feat.
"For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial elf weapons are simple weapons and advanced elf weapons are martial weapons.": not every feat is going to be equally as good for every class: how good is the fighter multiclass for that same ranger? Not very, but it might be useful for what it opens up like fighter feats. Similarly for the elf feat, it opens up uncommon access.
The thing is, what you call "useless" I call invaluable because it allow my character to enter any game without the need to debate why my character should or shouldn't work do to fiat. I'm willing to spend the feat for ease of use. It's like buying insurance: it costs you money even when nothing happens and much like that, those feats are insurance even it they end up not doing much more for the character.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you have a point PossibleCabbage but I could just as easily see a GM going another way, see that the book suggests that access is worth a feat and deny natural access out of hand.
The rules definitely encourage GMs to be flexible about this, but I don't think it's that weird that some GMs will be given pause when they're presented an option the book says the player needs a feat or special permission for and be hesitant to hand it out.
Yep historically when something has a feat that allows it or something close most GMs I have seen will point the feat out as well you need to take this to do the thing. Even if the feat is allowing the thing to be easier than normal or allows more than just the thing.
Well great pick to sword is obviously fallacious. But rapier to dueling sword? Throwing knives or clubs to juggling clubs. Yeah.But I don't see how "Zorro wields a greatpick for 6 levels until his GM lets him find the uncommon sword he built his concept around using and now is instantly an expert swordsman" is supposed to be a better story or realization of a concept than "Zorro is okay with a sword when he first starts out but gets better with it as he gains combat experience."
Giant bladed yo-yo to? Aklys to? Bladed hoop to? There aren't always such closely related weapons to pick from so I don't see it "fallacious" in the least but more a quibble of your over the particular example: it's a valid point even if the example isn't to your liking.