Rarity and access

[Temperans]

That is indeed one of the weirdness of rarity as written.

You can spend half the campaign having access due to a feat. But immediately after retraining, rule wise you lose all access. Any access you do keep, is purely by GM grace, who can say whatever he wants as to why you can't buy anymore, and as a player you can't argue (besides calling the GM a jerk).

Btw PF1 didnt say everything was available to players. It just had no wording limiting things, unless it was a prerequisite.

PF2 does make it better for things like "you need to be part of an organization" or "you need to have the blueprint".

[Squiggit]

While that is weird, I'm not sure it's really any weirder than any other form of retraining.

I mean, Sorcerers can retrain their bloodline if you want to really think about weird.

The solution would be to... not allow retraining in your games though, so I guess you can do that if you want. Not sure that really makes the game better, though.

[PossibleCabbage]

Retraining out of your feat that grants access is essentially "you lost your contacts who knew how to get their hands on this stuff." Like retraining out of Monastic Weapons would be something like "you're on the outs with the monastery that previously supplied you with temple swords." You still have the temple sword you bought back then, but you can't get another one easily.

The way I see it is that rarity is basically a tool for determining what exists within the context of the game. All common things do, and uncommon things selected by the players (via access granting feats) do, as do all uncommon and rare things that have been put there by the GM. If the GM gives a temple sword to an antagonist, then you can get that temple sword.

[Loengrin]

Personally I think that this rarity stuff is more for PFS than for home-play... In PF1 there was rules for knowing what kind of object, magical object and even spell was available in a town... Add to this that if there was no Elves in the settlement then the probability for having Elven objects at disposal was not high... ;)

The only difference now is that you don't have to build all settlements statblock to know what is or isn't available, the GM can decide "on the spot" if he thinks that his players can find a +3 rune in a 50 habitants hamlet, so be it... On the contrary, by RAW in PF1 using the settlement rules you can't... :p

Well for my part, as a GM, if my players really really wants a particular magic object or something rare they know they can ask and I'm more than willing to put up a quick "mini adventure" for the group to find what they want, or to equip them on the next boss... But they also know that if they ask for a powerful object : the "mini adventure" will be a bit difficult and, more importantly, that all the objects they want will not be collecting dust in the Boss chest but be on the boss or one of his lieutenant and will likely be used against them before they could use it for their benefit ;)

[Ubertron_X]

In my opinion rarity rules are only in place so GM's don't need to justify restricting access, which otherwise could and usually easily will lead to bad blood, change my mind.

[Temperans]

I agree that rarity was partly made so GMs dont have to think as much when deciding what is available.

While also putting away stuff that people found to strong, because they didnt account for people actually using said spells/abilities. I mean seriously, if teleport, detect/protection from alignment, trip machines, etc. were common (which they were for PF1), other characters specially the BBG wouldnt just have 0 counter measures. So much of the previous problems were caused by GMs not thinking about things, that it makes sense to just make it unavailable without permision. I remember hearing that some boss fights would cause TPKs if played smartly, as the stats would imply (mainly wizard bosses).

As discussed in previous talks about rarity its a case of it doing too many things at once. Something that is uncommon due to location or organization is uncommon for a totatly different to something being uncommon because its part of a class or subrace: and both are different to something being uncommon due to power (aka artifact).

In an ideal world: Changing location or meeting the right people can grant you access to the first, which doesnt disappear because your traded a feat: Your training and/or genetics gives access to the second, which only changes when you or your race changes: And finally, only the GM and level can grant things based on power, which covers too much to have any simple guideline.

[Zapp]

graystone wrote:

that's not an excuse to not give out things that make sense for the encounters

I'm not trying to make up excuses.

I'm just informing you PF2 is different, and there's nothing untoward with seeing a monster deal two weapon damage dice without there being a Striking rune to loot, for instance.

Remember, this began when Aratorin said:

Quote:

In APs at least, the easiest way to get Rituals is from NPCs. In book 1 of AoA for example, there is an enemy Necromancer that obviously has access to the Create Undead Ritual, as she has multiple Undead Minions. So we were able to gain access to it through her Spellbook.

Under no circumstances am I invalidating his experience.

I'm just pointing out that was a GM call and not something players should feel cheated out of if the GM made a different call.

That is, no, there is no general expectations that NPCs yield access to Rituals. Or any other uncommon game feature the adventure or GM doesn't think to give to the heroes.

Does that mean I'm making excuses to keep stuff from players? Please.

[Ubertron_X]

Comming from a different direction one needs to keep in mind that the old D&D and AD&D were generic rules for generic settings, so usually everything was open source for everyone (players and GMs). Only once the rules where ported into a specific setting like Dragonlance or Ravenloft there always were restrictions in place, e.g. being able to freely cast Detect Evil would soundly beat the entire point of the Ravenloft setting and related adventures.

Pathfinder / Golarion however already is a specific setting, so it makes sense that we have (at least some of) the restrictions we now face.

[Zapp]

Ubertron_X wrote:

In my opinion rarity rules are only in place so GM's don't need to justify restricting access, which otherwise could and usually easily will lead to bad blood, change my mind.

This.

It changes players' attitudes from expecting stuff, to being thankful for stuff.

A very very very welcome change indeed, even if you - as a player - never sees any change in practice.

[graystone]

Zapp wrote:

Ubertron_X wrote:

In my opinion rarity rules are only in place so GM's don't need to justify restricting access, which otherwise could and usually easily will lead to bad blood, change my mind.

This.

It changes players' attitudes from expecting stuff, to being thankful for stuff.

A very very very welcome change indeed, even if you - as a player - never sees any change in practice.

In a general sense, I agree. In a specific sense I disagree. It's cool to say there are no create undead rituals to be found in a vacuum. It's another to see it used THEN say the same thing. One is saying it just isn't there and the other is some sleight of hand trick like DM saying 'these aren't the droids you're looking for' when you can clearly see that they ARE.

Zapp wrote:

I'm not trying to make up excuses.

I'm just informing you PF2 is different, and there's nothing untoward with seeing a monster deal two weapon damage dice without there being a Striking rune to loot, for instance.

IMO, you ARE trying to make excuses. No one CARES about your weapon dice example as it really doesn't apply to this debate: no PC can SEE weapon dice. We're talking about things they can physically see. Like flaming swords turning into normal swords just cuz or a necromancer standing with some undead not having the go to necromancer ritual.

Zapp wrote:

I'm just pointing out that was a GM call and not something players should feel cheated out of if the GM made a different call.

That is, no, there is no general expectations that NPCs yield access to Rituals. Or any other uncommon game feature the adventure or GM doesn't think to give to the heroes.

Does that mean I'm making excuses to keep stuff from players? Please.

And I disagree with that: once you show the party something uncommon, it shouldn't come as a surprise if they party wants a way to get it. It's not entitlement to expect an alchemical crossbow after you've spent a whole combat getting hit by one and then defeating that foe. If it vanishes out of their hands as the DM says 'Yonk! no crossbow for you cuz I'm the DM!' is bad form no matter what edition you're playing. It's an EXCUSE for the DM to play with items and dangle them in front of the players and then snatch them away like you're stealing candy from babies... Entitled players? Please...

[HammerJack]

It seems like there are a couple of very different scenarios being treated as interchangeable in this thread.

Scenario A: The party fights a an alchemist with an alchemical crossbow, which promptly disappears after the fight. I would say that this is very clearly a bad way to implement rarity and access. It kills all narrative coherence in the pursuit of a questionable metagame purpose.

Scenario B: The players defeat a necromancer and recover his spellbook, but inexplicably cannot make any use of certain pages. This is like Scenario A.

Scenario C: The players fight a necromancer and do not find a spellbook afterward. Or they find that the necromancer is using another old wizard tradition, and is carrying only a stripped down traveling spellbook that does not contain everything he knows and his rituals. This is not at all the same as Scenarios A and B. The PCs are able to take what they have found, and attempt to make use of it. What they've found just isn't everything they wanted to find. (Though if you have reason to go this route as a GM, you should know where the things the PCS didn't find went, or why they weren't written down.) This is reasonable. No narrative has been broken, and no one has been cheated.

[Lanathar]

I don’t really want to go back and read the thread but have the people defending rarity even really suggested A and B as an argument. I am sure I read/interpreted it as point C

The A and B examples seem like hyperbole and potentially argument in bad faith

I am sure point C was the case study with people saying that is reasonable GM behaviour and then a reply of “oh no it isn’t”. Followed by squabbling over entitled players and tyrannical GMs (or the Mister Cavern vs. Dungeon Master argument)

But could easily have stemmed from miscommunication that easily happen through electronic writing mediums

[HammerJack]

I'd also like to point out that the statement that uncommon options should usually be obtainable eventually should be taken as having a big asterisk next to it. I would say that a big part of the the confusion and argument that comes up around the uncommon tag is because the uncommon tag is used for do many different reasons.

Things that are uncommon to make thematic ties to regions or ancestries are comparatively harmless, if they become accessible. Things that are uncommon because they're disruptive to certain plot types (divination, teleport, etc) may need to be considered more carefully, if you run that kind of game.

[Zapp]

Salamileg wrote:

So I think "in a necromancer's lair, the Create Undead ritual might be common" is a fair thing to say.

Had the poster said that, I probably would not have intervened. Since that's a perfectly uncontroversial statement.

However, the poster stated

Quote:

In APs at least, the easiest way to get Rituals is from NPCs. In book 1 of AoA for example, there is an enemy Necromancer that obviously has access to the Create Undead Ritual, as she has multiple Undead Minions. So we were able to gain access to it through her Spellbook.

To me that sounded like PF1 thinking, where the GM had to come up with a reason *not* to give out the ritual for it not to be there.

And so I clarified that no such explanation needs to be given (and provided the reasons why). I clarified it was GM fiat, that made the heroes find a grimoire with the ritual in it. Not the rules. Not the adventure. And certainly not any "norms".

Now, could have I read that wrong. Ayup! But the response I've gotten makes me pretty sure I did read it right, and that the clarification was necessary.

tl;dr: you said "might", Salamileg - it makes a world of difference! Thanks for responding and good luck with your gaming!

[Zapp]

graystone wrote:

In a general sense, I agree. In a specific sense I disagree. It's cool to say there are no create undead rituals to be found in a vacuum. It's another to see it used THEN say the same thing. One is saying it just isn't there and the other is some sleight of hand trick like DM saying 'these aren't the droids you're looking for' when you can clearly see that they ARE.

That's fair.

You seem to understand the subtle shift from PF1 to PF2, so I have nothing to add.

Regards,

[Zapp]

HammerJack wrote:

It seems like there are a couple of very different scenarios being treated as interchangeable in this thread.

Scenario A: The party fights a an alchemist with an alchemical crossbow, which promptly disappears after the fight. I would say that this is very clearly a bad way to implement rarity and access. It kills all narrative coherence in the pursuit of a questionable metagame purpose.

Scenario B: The players defeat a necromancer and recover his spellbook, but inexplicably cannot make any use of certain pages. This is like Scenario A.

Scenario C: The players fight a necromancer and do not find a spellbook afterward. Or they find that the necromancer is using another old wizard tradition, and is carrying only a stripped down traveling spellbook that does not contain everything he knows and his rituals. This is not at all the same as Scenarios A and B. The PCs are able to take what they have found, and attempt to make use of it. What they've found just isn't everything they wanted to find. (Though if you have reason to go this route as a GM, you should know where the things the PCS didn't find went, or why they weren't written down.) This is reasonable. No narrative has been broken, and no one has been cheated.

Ayup.

The case of monsters dealing 2d8 weapon damage without there being any Striking runes to loot afterwards is instructive.

In 3rd edition and Pathfinder 1 that would simply have been a rules mistake. Players would have expected the loot.

In D&D5 it's entirely normal, uncontroversial and indeed quite common. Monsters don't follow PC rules. NPCs being reliant on lootable bonuses to compete was a huge problem in previous editions, and both current games wisely avoid it.

And so you don't think I'm not talking about Pathfinder 2...:

Corrupted Retainers in part 1 of Extinction Event is an official Paizo example of this. Their extra damage die is explained away as "demonic corruption" with zero rules reference.

[Zapp]

Thank you Lanathar and Hammerjack.

[graystone]

HammerJack wrote:

I'd also like to point out that the statement that uncommon options should usually be obtainable eventually should be taken as having a big asterisk next to it. I would say that a big part of the the confusion and argument that comes up around the uncommon tag is because the uncommon tag is used for do many different reasons.

Things that are uncommon to make thematic ties to regions or ancestries are comparatively harmless, if they become accessible. Things that are uncommon because they're disruptive to certain plot types (divination, teleport, etc) may need to be considered more carefully, if you run that kind of game.

I can't agree more with this and it's one of my biggest complaints with the rarity system as it tries to emulate several things at once but is often not clear which aspect it's emulating at the time.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like the reason that rarity applies to potentially disruptive to plots (e.g. teleport, divination) is also because if these things were commonplace in society, things like "law and justice" and "trade" would be extremely different, perhaps to the point of being completely foreign to real world humans.

So as to avoid the problem of "why don't they just normally solve their problems with the magic that specifically solves this problem?" we just say that "the magic is somewhat uncommon."

[graystone]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like the reason that rarity applies to potentially disruptive to plots (e.g. teleport, divination) is also because if these things were commonplace in society, things like "law and justice" and "trade" would be extremely different, perhaps to the point of being completely foreign to real world humans.

So as to avoid the problem of "why don't they just normally solve their problems with the magic that specifically solves this problem?" we just say that "the magic is somewhat uncommon."

That doesn't make much sense when those some kind of things get added back in: look at deities and them granting such spells back, for instance, magnificent mansion, mind probe, shadow walk, ect.

[Temperans]

Well yeah magic is uncommon given how 80%+ of NPCs are commoners that at most would get an NPC class (if any exist).

But Golarion lore has many cases of using magic and other tools to solve problems. For Example: There is a Magic Item used in Tian Xia which shows a different colors based on alignment, the item's lore mentions how it was widely used until the trick was revealed. A magical effect used to covertly reveal creatures of different alignments, until the item became obsolete.

Or the very clear and simple example of Inheritor Crusader's, who can perfectly determine when someone is innocent or trying to hide something. The lore even says people with severe accusations even beg for their judgement.

So again it comes down to GMs and a lesser extent players not thinking things through, for whatever reason.

[graystone]

Temperans wrote:

So again it comes down to GMs and a lesser extent players not thinking things through, for whatever reason.

More a willing suspension of disbelief IMO. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

[Salamileg]

Temperans wrote:

Well yeah magic is uncommon given how 80%+ of NPCs are commoners that at most would get an NPC class (if any exist).

But Golarion lore has many cases of using magic and other tools to solve problems. For Example: There is a Magic Item used in Tian Xia which shows a different colors based on alignment, the item's lore mentions how it was widely used until the trick was revealed. A magical effect used to covertly reveal creatures of different alignments, until the item became obsolete.

Or the very clear and simple example of Inheritor Crusader's, who can perfectly determine when someone is innocent or trying to hide something. The lore even says people with severe accusations even beg for their judgement.

So again it comes down to GMs and a lesser extent players not thinking things through, for whatever reason.

And both of those only exist in specific places or groups, meaning that they would qualify for the uncommon or rare tags since they aren't everywhere.

[Lanathar]

There are lots of things that rarity helps with conceptually.

You often get PCs asking why nobles or even monarchs are not purchasing things like resurrection magic. Indeed I think my players were assuming that as they went up in levels and capabilities so did the rest of the people in the city. That was not the case

It led to a situation where they kicked down a door and blew apart the level 3 aristocrat with 9 con with one attack and were staggered that he was permanently killed (1E game where the players are level 13)

May seem slightly off topic but the point is that ok 1E players got access to so much magical capability that is started to warp their perception of the world they were playing in. Some of those things are now restricted (but not all)

And as for certain gods adding spells back in - isn’t that just a small number of gods , each with only three specific spells that are only picked up by clerics? That starts to fit the uncommon definition into how often it *should* come up - albeit not keeping the tag. Sure it might turn out that every cleric worships the god that gives access to spell x that is deemed super powerful. But that remains to be seen

[graystone]

Lanathar wrote:

There are lots of things that rarity helps with conceptually.

You often get PCs asking why nobles or even monarchs are not purchasing things like resurrection magic. Indeed I think my players were assuming that as they went up in levels and capabilities so did the rest of the people in the city. That was not the case

It's not uncommon for players to move to bigger and better places as they level so it isn't surprising to encounter higher level npc that way. So it might not be that they expected npc leveling but that they where used to their local leveling up and meeting npc's around their level that way instead.

Lanathar wrote:

And as for certain gods adding spells back in - isn’t that just a small number of gods , each with only three specific spells that are only picked up by clerics? That starts to fit the uncommon definition into how often it *should* come up - albeit not keeping the tag. Sure it might turn out that every cleric worships the god that gives access to spell x that is deemed super powerful. But that remains to be seen

Clerics can make scrolls and sell them. How long does it require for those spells to not be uncommon anymore? There is NO religious restriction on doing this so it's not a leap to see this done or even if it stays uncommon, knowing where to go to get those spells if you want them. [just a roll vs religion skill].

As to number of spells, that number varies from god to god. Some give a lot more than 3.

[thenobledrake]

graystone wrote:

Clerics can make scrolls and sell them. How long does it require for those spells to not be uncommon anymore? There is NO religious restriction on doing this so it's not a leap to see this done or even if it stays uncommon, knowing where to go to get those spells if you want them. [just a roll vs religion skill].

Clearly there must be something dissuading the dissemination of uncommon and rare spells because otherwise there would not be any uncommon or rare spells that hadn't just been invented/discovered.

There doesn't have to be an explicit restriction on religious grounds to stop things. Could be as simple as not actually being profitable, or not feasible for other reasons.

[Temperans]

That's the point I am trying to make.

PF2 made it so GMs don't need to come up with a reason for something to be available. They can just say its uncommon and poof, no one can get it. As opposed to having to think of cause an effect of allowing easy access to spells.

The tool of saying "no" didn't change, just the amount of thinking of how that had an effect.

Remove the acquisition limit from uncommon spells, and the two systems are practically identical.

[graystone]

thenobledrake wrote:

Clearly there must be something dissuading the dissemination of uncommon and rare spells because otherwise there would not be any uncommon or rare spells that hadn't just been invented/discovered.

But there isn't: a common rule element [cleric] grants access to an uncommon rule element [spells] with no limitation on them granting that access to other. Hence why I said it doesn't make sense. Unknown and unfindable theoretical reasons aren't very persuasive in making them seem more reasonable. IMO, they where made for balance reasons and not for making sense reasons.

thenobledrake wrote:

There doesn't have to be an explicit restriction on religious grounds to stop things.

That's the ONLY reasonable explanation I could think of. Everything else seems... I'll charitably say farfetched.

thenobledrake wrote:

Could be as simple as not actually being profitable, or not feasible for other reasons.

It could be aliens or native american ghosts stop you too but I don't see how something we can't know factors into it. Having rules work entirely different 'just cuz' to justify why things don't make sense... doesn't make sense to me.

Temperans wrote:

PF2 made it so GMs don't need to come up with a reason for something to be available. They can just say its uncommon and poof, no one can get it.

But THAT is my point: it actually doesn't work that way as the game turns around and overrides you and gives uncommon access from common things. A DM that goes against allowing a cleric to take an uncommon spell that their god allows can't claim 'rarity' to disallow it nor would that work if they then wished to start a stand in the market selling such spells. You could houserule it away but that goes against what you're trying to gain with the rarity system.

Temperans wrote:

Remove the acquisition limit from uncommon spells, and the two systems are practically identical.

I don't really see any difference. If you change the games rarity rating, IMO that's as much of a houserule from the basic rules as just saying 'I houserules it so that this item doesn't exist'. The method that is used to change it still has the exact same results and if you wouldn't think it fair as a houserule I'm not sure how saying you altered the rarity to do the same thing makes you feel any different.

[Zapp]

Temperans wrote:

PF2 made it so GMs don't need to come up with a reason for something to be available.

This.

[Shisumo]

graystone wrote:

But THAT is my point: it actually doesn't work that way as the game turns around and overrides you and gives uncommon access from common things.

I think the flaw in this logic is that it assumes that all uncommonality is equal. I don't think that's an assumption supported by the game.

"Uncommon" wears a lot of different hats in PF2. Some things are "uncommon overall, but common for a subset of the game world" like focus spells and heritage weaponry; other things are uncommon-full-stop, like rituals. Trying to argue about the latter by relying on the former is fallacious.