| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a number of excellent comments and perspectives here. Having played on both sides of the GM screen...
I have sympathy for a GM who has gone through the effort of creating not only an adventure but an entire campaign, flavored accordingly, only to have your players either blow it up entirely because of an otherwise overpowered combination of mechanics (e.g. we teleport past the villain's maze) or to have your players not run with the expected flavor (e.g. "I honk my clown nose and tweak the demon-lord's cheek while doing a jig!").
I have sympathy for a player who has had a character concept in their mind's eye and finally gets to make it "real" in an RPG, only to have to pare it down because the GM was not on board with the same vision, and to have limited recourse for finding another game. This concept, of course, could be anywhere from "I want to be like the Hulk and literally be able to smash an entire castle on day 1!" to "I would like to be like Nightwing (not Robin, too bright), circus background, acrobatic fighting style, but with my parent's old death hoop from before they died". The first, of course, needing reigning in, but the latter... that's the scenario I hate to see a player disempowered from being able to portray.
The rarity rules potentially address both issues. For my part, I would have liked to have seen:
1) Rarity rules specifically to address power concerns - We have this already, of course, with Uncommon (or more rare) spells to be found throughout the CRB. Magic items, too. Basically, this is where I think rarity feels "right", because it is a mechanic that specifically adds a safety to what, from experience with PF1, have been shown to be potentially game-breaking options.
2) A separate set of rules to address theming concerns - This is where I think the player should have more power, or where there should at least be more rules/guidance/framework. Things like circus weapons requiring a specific background that the player could select. We already have that, to an extent, with things like Unconventional Weaponry, as well as weapon access granted by ancestry. And I think that the default assumption for *this* category should be that the *GRANTING* features are generally available, even if the *GRANTED* features are not. That is, I think that the "Circus Background" should have been listed as "Common" and the weapons so granted as "Uncommon". The player could choose to grab the "Circus Background" and could be guaranteed to have said weapons, barring a session zero GM ruling that that background was excluded. And yes, that is specifically to tilt the balance of the discussion toward the GM. As I have pointed out, I have been at tables where a GM has no problem ruling otherwise generally available features to be unavailable, so it's not like the GM has their hands tied.
But frankly, the non-mechanically-advantageous-but-interestingly-themed things are the window dressing a player gets to add to their character, the one aspect of the game fully under their control. Character creation is something that the player is most deeply involved with and has the greatest investment in; the GM has interest in the campaign as a whole but cannot care more for how a character looks and feels than the player playing said character.
There are, of course, themes that could be jarring; wanting to play an android from Numeria might be enough to dissuade a GM from going along if the advanced technology would be too bad a fit. And sure, wanting to play "Chucky the Clown" could be very disruptive. The thing is, you don't have to have the Circus Background to be a disruptive "Chucky the Clown". And if you want to play a Circus Background, spend session zero working out how you can be "Chucky the Clown" without the GM worrying you are going to mess with their tone. But taking the option off the table by default puts a lot more ground between a player and the concept for their character.
"Why not spend session zero trying to convince the GM to allow Circus Weapons rather than the GM having to talk you down?" Because the GM holds all the cards already. What they say goes or there is no game. To the extent that something impacts a player's ability to control some of the narrative surrounding their own character, I think the game system should have been permissive by default. Power concerns feel approriately addressed; but the theming for a character feels like it got pulled back from the players. Possibly because some of the most interesting themes were also tied to mechanics in PF1? I don't know.
In the end, I believe the rarity rules impacting access to mundane but thematically interesting choices disempower players too much. Rarity rules to address mechanical game disruption feel fine to me. YMMV. HAND.
Seems to me that clearly says I get access to the weapon chosen. So the GM does actively have to say no you can't take a feat from the core rulebook in this case.I'm not 100% sure about this. There was some debate back when the LOWG came out as to whether Unconventional Weaponry let you gain proficiency in the Aldori Dueling Sword, and the consensus seemed negative. So some clarification on that feat would be appreciated.
I mean if "Aldori" are not an "ancestry or culture" I don't think "Circus Performers" would be.
But if that's the case its not a weapon choosable but an ogre hook would be.
EDIT: I'm not saying every weapon has a feat/option to have it in the rules that's the point of this thread. Right now Circus weapons don't have any way to access them outside of "GMother may I?" or maybe if the AP gets PFS support a boon.
Seems to me that clearly says I get access to the weapon chosen. So the GM does actively have to say no you can't take a feat from the core rulebook in this case.And? You respond as if I said the rules *never* gave the PC access. That's not what the words I said mean:
I understand the concept. It is not foreign. It is also not nearly as ubiquitous in PF2 as in PF1."not nearly as ubiquitous" mean that yes there are are cases such as the one you bring up but that those cover far from all cases.
The rule that DO cover all cases is:
Ask your GM.
So you go from the GM "never actively has to say no" to well yeah some times there are cases but not all cases?
I don't think it is that easy to say that the circus weapons are purely a thematic choice with no mechanical edge. I can see a lot of players looking at fire poi as a pretty powerful mechanical choice, especially in a thematic campaign where fire damage is an edge. It is a weapon that requires 1 action to get started, but then does 2d4 damage, 1 persistent damage on a critical hit, and has the "twin" trait, on top of being agile and finesse. It is an advanced weapon, but would be selectable by a human with unconventional weaponry that was a fighter, or ranger, which can both be dex based and do nasty things with a twin weapon. Or you could go rogue and then MC to fighter and advance from poi to Fire poi at 3rd level.
For a circus themed campaign, I think this character could be interesting and thematic. But it really just leads back to pathfinder 1 bloat for every single campaign specific feat, weapon, and spell to need to be generally accessible to players. It is ok to hold on to character ideas until you find a game where that character would be appropriate.
The power needs to rest with the GM in setting up the tone of their campaign. That is a lot easier to accomplish when the default with GM facing player options is that they are not accessible unless the GM wants to make them open to players. That is exactly how the rarity system currently works.
You don't need to use a bladed hula-hoop in combat to have a character who comes from a circus background. Insisting that you have a right to use a specific weapon in a campaign where that weapon is inappropriate is just setting your character up for disappointment down the road when you never find runes geared towards your weapon, or versions of that weapon made with advanced materials. Unless of course your character was the circus performer who also worked the forge so you can make your own weapons in downtime, but that feels like it is much less of a character concept than a "I want to be the spinning fire circle of death character," which is pure mechanics.
Again if talking about the theme of the campaign I agree the GM has that decision, but if the GM is going to run the Circus AP but not want Circus uncommon feats, weapons, and spells maybe they shouldn't run that campaign.
I don't think it is that easy to say that the circus weapons are purely a thematic choice with no mechanical edge. I can see a lot of players looking at fire poi as a pretty powerful mechanical choice, especially in a thematic campaign where fire damage is an edge. It is a weapon that requires 1 action to get started, but then does 2d4 damage, 1 persistent damage on a critical hit, and has the "twin" trait, on top of being agile and finesse.
A little off topic, but how does that weapon work with runes?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Striking Runes and other effects only effect the bludgeoning damage not the Fire damage.
It's entirely plausible for a GM to want to run Extinction Curse, but for example, not want someone to play a literal clown (even though this is a background in the player's guide.)
If stuff like this comes up where some themes or flair are just things you're not interested in, this is a conversation you have with your group. It's not something you declare from on high, even though you can. It's best to get people on board by sharing your vision of "I'd like this to be a little serious" or whatever.
Tone is something the GM should have some opinions about, since the GM has the most input on setting said tone, but it's also something that the GM is never going to be able to pull off without the cooperation of their players. So you have to have these conversations.
It's entirely plausible for a GM to want to run Extinction Curse, but for example, not want someone to play a literal clown (even though this is a background in the player's guide.)
If stuff like this comes up where some themes or flair are just things you're not interested in, this is a conversation you have with your group. It's not something you declare from on high, even though you can. It's best to get people on board by sharing your vision of "I'd like this to be a little serious" or whatever.
Tone is something the GM should have some opinions about, since the GM has the most input on setting said tone, but it's also something that the GM is never going to be able to pull off without the cooperation of their players. So you have to have these conversations.
Not sure how much of it I may have ran.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again if talking about the theme of the campaign I agree the GM has that decision, but if the GM is going to run the Circus AP but not want Circus uncommon feats, weapons, and spells maybe they shouldn't run that campaign.Again the telling the GM what to do.
Maybe you should try GMing yourself.
First off I do, the current campaign I am playing in is the first in almost 4 years i haven't been the GM for.
Second maybe I'm an odd duck in how I view the role of the GM. But yes I'm am telling any GM that doesn't want clowns and jugglers in their game that this isn't the AP you want to run. Just like I would tell a GM that doesn't want a party of pirates not to run skulls and shackles.
And I'm sorry that I feel that a GM shouldn't be telling players that options for accessing uncommon things in the CRB are banned. At that point we are back to playing mother may I with the GM just to play the game. Sir can I take fighter as my class? Please can my cleric request heal from his god today? Sir are longswords okay as a weapon choice?
Yes i picked ridiculus examples because they follow the same vein as saying a Dwarven Waraxe can't be found and used by a dwarf from a dwarven kingdom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear,
I am fine with APs having ways to make options available within the campaign, although I don't think it necessarily needs to make all options available at character creation.
I do think that the toolbox format is a little sparse on talking about just how common options are supposed to be within those APs which is an unfortunate limitation of the rarity system itself not having the nuance for talking about why an option is limited to uncommon. I don't think the solution is to have a default (all uncommon options listed in this book are common in this AP) because it takes away the GM's ability to make finding or integrating these items a part of the story. I would like to see something in the GMG or even a blog post talking about the nuances of how to use these items and introduce them.
I am strongly opposed to having common feats that make all uncommon weapons and options from the AP tool kits available to PCs, because I think the GM should be aware of what material they are allowing into their campaigns. That is what the rarity system is set up to do, and encouraging conversations between players and GMs about the kinds of characters they want to play is a good thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear,
I am fine with APs having ways to make options available within the campaign, although I don't think it necessarily needs to make all options available at character creation.
I do think that the toolbox format is a little sparse on talking about just how common options are supposed to be within those APs which is an unfortunate limitation of the rarity system itself not having the nuance for talking about why an option is limited to uncommon. I don't think the solution is to have a default (all uncommon options listed in this book are common in this AP) because it takes away the GM's ability to make finding or integrating these items a part of the story. I would like to see something in the GMG or even a blog post talking about the nuances of how to use these items and introduce them.
I am strongly opposed to having common feats that make all uncommon weapons and options from the AP tool kits available to PCs, because I think the GM should be aware of what material they are allowing into their campaigns. That is what the rarity system is set up to do, and encouraging conversations between players and GMs about the kinds of characters they want to play is a good thing.
I don't think anyone is saying carte blanche it, but yes if your going to add new stuff every single book (and they will it drives sales) then give some advice on adding it/making it availble. Right now a newer GM has no clue if a Polytool or a Bladed hoop is just hard to find or potentially disruptive and without advice on that most will default to keeping it limited to keep things safe.
I am really glad Ron laid it out like that. I hope a similar thing is explained more formally in the GMG, because not everyone who buys the books will trace that stuff down through blog posts.
At the same time it is a great use of web space for the designers to have a space to talk about where and how they envision some of these options being employed in their specific adventures, as Ron has done here. So good job Ron!
This is why the rarity system needs more than 3 settings.
There should be a setting for "unlocked by a commonly accessible feat/feature/etc."
Unless you also agree that a GM can say "no, you can't have that focus spell, its Uncommon."
Yes the quote from Ron is a big help and it covers what we have been saying it's expected the players will get access at some point so hopefully not before it's pointless to have it.
@Zapp I'll say it again there is a difference between what Ron has said "we assume, somehow, the characters can get at it" for this AP and saying "I get to have this right now". When I'm talking about rules that say players have access to something they are in the rules. And yeah if your going to not allow certain feats to be taken/work especially those from the CRB the GM either needs to have that laid out up front, by session 0 at the latest, or come off as a dick after a player has built towards something with a clear cut path for access then tell them no.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference betwenn a GM saying "That is Uncommon, you can't have it" and a GM saying "That thing doesn't suit the tone/style/... of game we play, you can't have it", yet both might mean the same thing.
This is why the rarity system needs more than 3 settings.
There should be a setting for "unlocked by a commonly accessible feat/feature/etc."
Unless you also agree that a GM can say "no, you can't have that focus spell, its Uncommon."
Agree to what? The notion the GM can't say no? Don't be absurd.
The GM can say "no, you can't have a Longsword - no longswords in my campaign" and be entirely within his rights.
(You can always leave the group if you think the GM is pulling a dick move, but the assumption is that there's a valid reason for no metal weapons in that world)
And that's fine if we are covering that up front and I no what I am getting into but not after being told "I'm running Rise of the Runelords and yeah we are setting it in Golarion". Once the GM starts restricting common options which by default in the rules everyone who meets the prereqs can have I start getting wary. If it fits the story and your telling people up front that's their choice. But waiting till a monk hits level 6 to tell him he can't take abundant step, or telling a player who had no reason to ask about an uncommon weapon with a feat at first level that they can't take it when they do get the chance is a bait and switch and at the very least you better be allowing instant or damn near instant retraining. The entire character could have been taking feats picking ability scores and such for that purpose.
I agree but you have also said if such a feat existed it would be bad because it's a rule that tells the GM I get this.
This is why the rarity system needs more than 3 settings.
There should be a setting for "unlocked by a commonly accessible feat/feature/etc."
Unless you also agree that a GM can say "no, you can't have that focus spell, its Uncommon."
That's already covered in the CRB
"Some character choices give access to uncommon options, and the GM can choose to allow access for anyone."
All Focus Spells are uncommon, and they're all granted by character features/options. RAW the GM can't disallow them, but can allow others to get them.
