| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 made it so GMs don't need to come up with a reason for something to be available.This.
They DO when it's already listed as a set rarity in the game: you suddenly come out and say 'plate is uncommon' when the paladin gets enough cash together to buy it, he's going to ask why and rightfully so. The DM can have gnomes turn purple and grow wings overnight too, but it's insanity to think people aren't going to ask 'why?'. Rarity isn't a free pass to randomly remove things from the game during play.
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.
Oh, I completely understand number of hats rarity tries to wear. In this situation, I don't see where it matters at all which one it tries to wear.
"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.
I don't think anyone has tried to say you can make rituals common: it's got a specific rule that they have a minimum. The argument with rituals is that when you see someone use a ritual and you defeat them that it doesn't seem out of place to expect to find a copy of that ritual in the treasure.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This, if a Deity grants an Uncommon spell and you the GM don’t want that spell in play then either disallow the Deity or swap the spell beforehand. A Cleric being granted Uncommon and Rare spells by their Deity is a completely valid and rules legal method to obtain those spells. Disallowing then “just because” is not.
Uncommon and Rare just means you can’t assume to automatically get them, it does not in any way mean you can never get Access to them and that all ways to Access them don’t work.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The things that the GM can, full stop, say "no" to with no push-pull with the players are rare, not uncommon. If a player chooses something that grants an uncommon option (like a feat or a deity) then they get that. If the GM wants to intervene to keep them from having whatever uncommon thing, that's not really different from saying "no elves in this game, please".
But uncommon things are supposed to be 50% player input/50% GM input. Some uncommon things do not have a guaranteed access path, and for those you're supposed to work with your GM to represent how your character is interested in it.
It's simple. There is what we do know - which is that uncommon and rare spells remain uncommon and rare despite their clear points of access and there not being clear reasons they aren't further spread.
What I don't know STILL can't help make sense of things: recall my point is that it doesn't make sense, so unknowables truly don't factor into it AT ALL as ... I don't know them. :P
Which means the reason, which clearly must exist or else conditions would not be as they are, is something which we do not yet know, rather than something which doesn't exist.
It must make sense because it is... doesn't make sense. An explanation with missing information can be true and not make ANY sense with the missing context. Something's existence alone isn't proof of it makes sense. Now it might make sense if the unknown becomes known, but that a pure hypothetical situation of what might happen in the future: I'm talking abut RIGHT NOW. At this moment, it makes no sense. It can be a very simple balance choice without taking sense into account.
Also note this: "Note that if an uncommon or rare formula is broadly disseminated, it eventually becomes more common. This can take months or years, but the item might start showing up in shops all around the world." This is what I'm looking at. I see no reason it wouldn't be "broadly disseminated" just through scroll. If there is some mystery reason to it, I can't see it.
My point is that rather than trying to come up with reasons that make sense to you why things won't or shouldn't stay rare and uncommon, you could be spending that effort coming up with reasons that do make sense to you why things will stay rare or uncommon.
What effort. I read it and it didn't make sense: full stop. I didn't have to put extra thought into how it MIGHT be possible that there is some hidden meaning that might let it make sense. It was a simple reading of the material and thinking 'huh... That doesn't make sense'. I don't see a reason to theorize mystery intent on what might be.
Because it is exceedingly unlikely that as PF2 continues through its lifespan than options which are currently marked rare or uncommon will be issued errata/update that says to change their tag to make them more common - so there's no reason to get hung up on what is, at most, a flowery bit of reminder that GMs can alter the rules if they see fit.
Meaningless IMO. Reading the deity entries and recalling the rarity dissemination entry just made it click how it doesn't make sense to me. What they MIGHT do in the future doesn't make it make sense now. Could they revisit rarities? They already have: for instance, the Magic Warrior Dedication should have the uncommon trait.
I think the most appropriate answer is just that it's abstracted for the sake of convenience.
D&D/Pathfinder tends to always break down if you go for internal world consistency over playability. So... it's uncommon because it just is. Doesn't matter if an organization has the capability to disseminate the information and compelling in-universe reasons to do so. They don't.
The rarity of whatever you're thinking of is preserved through literal acts of God. And gods are active participants in the world so that's not even necessarily a total cop out to say.
I think the most appropriate answer is just that it's abstracted for the sake of convenience.
Oh, I've said as much: it's done for balance instead of making sense.
D&D/Pathfinder tends to always break down if you go for internal world consistency over playability. So... it's uncommon because it just is. Doesn't matter if an organization has the capability to disseminate the information and compelling in-universe reasons to do so. They don't.
I understand that technically but I can't see why you can't bypass uncommon by just going to the source and getting it since it's a common element that has access to it: IE the clerics with access are common. ;)
The rarity of whatever you're thinking of is preserved through literal acts of God. And gods are active participants in the world so that's not even necessarily a total cop out to say.
The god of the status quo of the rarity system really got the short end of the divinity stick. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Graystone I agree with you that rarity is inconsistent, specially with common rule options that grant access to uncommon or rare options. But I think that specific case is a result of the "feat grants access to X spell/option": If the feat was the spell/option then you wouldn't need to classify the spell/option as uncommon/rare.
And yes I agree that GMs that dont come up with a reason are doing a disservice. Granted that some GMs simply don't have time/mentality for indept explanations.
One of the central tenets of the rarity system is that it can change depending on how you look for it: "Because uncommon elements are available in certain circumstances, it often varies by locale, even within the same setting. For instance, a katana is uncommon in the Core Rulebook and in the Inner Sea region of Golarion, but in Asian fantasy–inspired Tian Xia, a katana would be common and some western weapons might be uncommon. Similarly, in an elven kingdom, uncommon elven weapons like the elven curve blade might be common." For me, going to a church of a deity that has access to an uncommon spell is the same kind of situation as going to Tain Xia and looking for a katana. IE I went to where it's common.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to learn that spell, you can go to the church of whichever god grants it, and sure someone who knows it will be there. But it's not like churches are "rare spell emporiums" and the people there are probably motivated by things other than "I can pay you."
So you're still going to need to convince the NPC "hey, I need to learn this spell that your deity grants you" is somehow in the best interest of them, their church, or their god.
So making that spell uncommon, even though a lot of people have it, means "the GM can set a plot hook with it" rather than "you can just get it."
If you want to learn that spell, you can go to the church of whichever god grants it, and sure someone who knows it will be there. But it's not like churches are "rare spell emporiums" and the people there are probably motivated by things other than "I can pay you."
So you're still going to need to convince the NPC "hey, I need to learn this spell that your deity grants you" is somehow in the best interest of them, their church, or their god.
So making that spell uncommon, even though a lot of people have it, means "the GM can set a plot hook with it" rather than "you can just get it."
My point is that it sets of a different situation than other uncommon elements: these spells aren't as uncommon. There is a clear difference between 'I'm looking for this spell and I know who has access to it' and 'I want this spell, any idea where I can find it?'. Sure, I might have to jump through some hoops to get it but I've jumped a few steps over other uncommon items. For myself, these would seem to be on there way to be "disseminated" even if not widely so yet. Or to put it another way it's easier to find one of those spells [or someone with access to it] than it is to find a random person with access to a katana or a Rope Trick.
Is there a specific rules reference that would suggest a dwarf fighter has access to a dwarven waraxe?
Is there a specific rules reference that would suggest a dwarf fighter has access to a dwarven waraxe?
Just by being a dwarf fighter? No.
By being a dwarf that took Dwarven Weapon Familiarity, it's in the feat:
"Your kin have instilled in you an affinity for hard-hitting weapons, and you prefer these to more elegant arms. You are trained with the battle axe, pick, and warhammer.You also gain access to all uncommon dwarf weapons. For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial dwarf weapons are simple weapons and advanced dwarf weapons are martial weapons. "
Is there a specific rules reference that would suggest a dwarf fighter has access to a dwarven waraxe?Just by being a dwarf fighter? No.
By being a dwarf that took Dwarven Weapon Familiarity, it's in the feat:
"Your kin have instilled in you an affinity for hard-hitting weapons, and you prefer these to more elegant arms. You are trained with the battle axe, pick, and warhammer.You also gain access to all uncommon dwarf weapons. For the purpose of determining your proficiency, martial dwarf weapons are simple weapons and advanced dwarf weapons are martial weapons. "
So, I need to spend a feat to be able to buy a dwarven waraxe?
Or get permission from your GM.
I think the deity thing is a bit of a red herring. Having a granted spell doesn't mean you can teach it. Clerics don't really "know" spells like a wizard does. Its divine inspiration not knowledge you carry round.
Learn a spell: "You can gain access to a new spell of your tradition from someone who knows that spell or from magical writing like a spellbook or scroll." The cleric knows the spell and can make a scroll of it. What rule do you see that prevent it? Or are you saying no cleric can ever make scrolls?
Craft a Spell: "When you begin the crafting process, choose a spell to put into the scroll. You have to either Cast that Spell during the crafting process, or someone else must do so in your presence." So they JUST have to be able to cast the spell to help make a scroll [they don't even have to make it themselves].
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or get permission from your GM.
That seems like a strong incentive to just stick with a battleaxe or greataxe.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do note that a dwarven fighter would want to take that feat, anyway, if they just happened to find a dwarves waraxe and intended to use it, because the feat would allow you to wield that advanced weapon with your martial weapon proficiency level, and a +2 to hit is not a small improvement.
Do note that a dwarven fighter would want to take that feat, anyway, if they just happened to find a dwarves waraxe and intended to use it, because the feat would allow you to wield that advanced weapon with your martial weapon proficiency level, and a +2 to hit is not a small improvement.
Somehow I missed that it's an advanced weapon. I guess that does make it somewhat worthwhile for that weapon, then. ... Although if I'm not mistaken, that means dwarves without that feat will be whiffing all over the place with a dwarven war axe. Fighters, not so much, but champions, for sure. Good to know. Although, for an advanced weapon, it is not all that spectacular. Basically it's a weapon that can be used as either a battle axe (1d8) or a greataxe (1d12).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fantastic change imho. One of the best things about 2e. I've implemented in the PF 1 campaign I'm currently running.
It was unfortunate how Pathfinder 1 went from 'here's a huge amount of rich setting and rules content with esoteric items and abilities in it' morphing into 'here's an online shopping list, with all the setting info removed, from which I should be free to pick anything and have it manufactured locally whenever I want'.
Just because a certain magic item exists somewhere in the world, it doesn't mean that a character should a) have heard of it, and b) be able to find someone who can make it locally.
Want a Numerology Cylinder, the carefully guarded tool of the Oracular Council of Po Li, a small land locked nation in distant Tian Xia? Created using the Path of Numbers along with the Dragon Empires zodiac, oneiromancy, extispicy, and other complex or esoteric methods to extract the wisdom that has sustained them since ancient time. No problem sir! The local crafter in the village in Isger can have one made for you by Oathday.
Golarion doesn't have Amazon Prime. Nor should it.
Scarcity leads to interesting stories. It also gives the GM ways to reward their players. And it creates ways for characters to work towards the things they desire, rather than just ticking them off a shopping list.
It also discourages min maxers / powergamers from spending days hunting for obscure items to further optimise their characters. Which is a problem if every player in the party isn't doing it since the GM ends up having to manage encounters where the hyper-optimised characters and casual gamer characters are vastly different in strength.
So many benefits. I really don't mind dealing with the occasional grumpy player who absolutely demands to have 'obscure item X' because it gives them exactly the specific bonus they need to make their build optimal. Whilst they insist that, as well as being the son of the local Chelish lord, despite being an aasimar, they also mysteriously have learned the spellhunter skills of the inhabitants of an archeipelago in souther Tian Xia. But at least 'the fates watch over you', the same as they watch over every other character in the party by some cosmic coincidence!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) GMs always have and always have had to veto any option the player chooses.
The debate in this thread shows that whilst GMs may assume they have that Veto, many 1st edition players don't see it that way. Hence the fuss about making that Veto explicit in 2nd edition via rarity.
2) The only places that strips all the Golarion flavor from things is PFSRD, which is also where many 3pp things are compiled. If you dont want stripped down flavor tell your players to use AoNPRD.
The same is true of aonprd - in that it removes context: such as the surrounding flavour of the book things are found in. Such as the Numerology Cylinder (see below)...
3) The world is only as much a shopping mart as you allow it to be. Shops only sell what you say, and PCs only have time to craft if you give it to them. The GM controls economy however they see fit, and if you as a GM need a tool to help you okay, but not every GM needs or wants it.
In theory. But in practice many / some players resent not having easy access to any item or ability their build demands. Again, witness this thread.
Having said that, I found no lore that said Numerology Cylinders are some super secret item, even if the only known location is in that area.
My point: you are illustrating it for me here. So thank you :)
If you read the book that the Numerology Cylinder is found in: namely Disciple's Doctrine, you will find the Oracular Council of Po Li, which details the "esoteric numerology" methods used by the Council. Esoteric means "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest". It's clear from the text as a whole that the faction is using highly specialised and well-guarded knowledge and skills. This text is not in aonprd, you need to own the book.
Then at the start of the magic item section it says:
"Disciples of less common faiths often rely on a mix of mundane and magical implements to perform rites of worship, while some use occult rituals to contact or even channel the entities they revere. The following pages present equipment, magic items, and occult rituals used by adherents of various doctrines and systems of beliefs.".
And then it lists the Numerology Cylinder
From the context it's unambiguously clear that the Numerology Cylinder is a specialist tool of the Oracular Council. But from just the item stat block this is not apparent.
In the same section we can find the 'Storval's Fang' (a magical klar) that clearly requires access to the Shoanti shamanic traditions the book talks about, for example, even though there's nothing about that in the item stat block itself. I'm not going to let a chelish weaponsmith in Westcrown craft a Storval's Fang, even if the aonprd entry doesn't have anything to say about that.
PF 2 solves this neatly by sticking 'rare' on that kind of item. In both cases, if those items were added to 2nd edition, they'd have at minimum an Uncommon tag, and quite possibly a Rare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... or you could just talk to your GM. They’re people too.All of Graystone's Mister Caverns were monsters who existed purely to deny him fun from playing RPGs, didn't you get the memo?
One of the most established rules of RPGs is that without exceptions all GMs are inherently evil and their first and formost objective is to keep players down and miserable. Sheesh, where do your GMs come from? The land of make-believe? I'd have more chances talking my boss into a double-digit raise than getting an uncommon item from any of my GMs. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You misunderstood what that passage says.
You see, I think it's you that misunderstand what that passage says :) We'll just have to agree to disagree. Which is why I like the PF 2 rarity system so much: it removes this kind of misunderstanding between players and the GM. It just says: players need to ask the GM.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something to remember with Graystone is that they often (exclusively?) play in PbP/online games where table variance is really high and rules ambiguities are crippling. I, personally, love that rarity tags as someone with consistent groups. But I can definitely see that there aren`t black and white answers that every GM will agree on.
Already in this thread were several things that came up where I mentally said, `Oh, I don`t use rarity that way.` And that sort of thinking is something that Graystone would like cleared up, right?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You run into one of 'those' GMs and you're like 'Man, who hurt you?'
And you run into 'those' players and you're like 'Oh. I get it now.'
Right. There is vast space between 'GMs that just want to inflict suffering and deprivation' and 'Players on a power trip, who throw their toys out of the pram if they can't have everything they want, how they want it, right now'.
Both exist. Don't be either :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You run into one of 'those' GMs and you're like 'Man, who hurt you?'
And you run into 'those' players and you're like 'Oh. I get it now.'
Right. There is vast space between 'GMs that just want to inflict suffering and deprivation' and 'Players on a power trip, who throw their toys out of the pram if they can't have everything they want, how they want it, right now'.
Both exist. Don't be either :)
And kick both out of your games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) GMs always have and always have had to veto any option the player chooses. The only problem on this front is that too many GMs say, "no I dont like that" instead of the more reasonable "no you can't find that, but you did find X".
I mean, this is why I really like rarity. You could always choose to do extra work to vet every single item that's brought to you by a player who wants it. But GMing is already a lot of work and who wants to sign up for extra work?
Rarity builds the governor there into the game by default, so the GM no longer has to say "no" instead the GM gets to say "yes."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Just to add a small note, while this is true (and something I'm just fine with) on the other hand it would feel like a jerk move if you see a monster (or, say, a Human Samurai) wielding an Uncommon Katana, but then when they go down the GM doesn't allow you to loot that Katana because it's Uncommon and they didn't feel like giving you that Uncommon weapon. And the same applies for anything that is easily identified in-game as being an effect from a given item (such as a Pathfinder agent's Wayfinder that you saw them casting Light with, or the Shield that your Master Craftsman visually identified as being Orichalcum with a Recall Knowledge action during the fight.)
|
I think what Zapp is saying is that not all spellcasters casting arcane necromantic spells are the PC class Wizards. In fact theoretically speaking the 'default' for Pathfinder 2 is that you should not at all assume that is the case.
Surely, though, there are Wizards in the world other than the PC and whatever replacement PC shows up later in the campaign. Spellbooks are literally a gear item in the Core Rulebook. Are they manufactured exclusively for the PC Wizard and just a a super niche item?
Yeah, NPCs and monsters are built using different rules than PCs, but should that mean that PCs are utterly unique in the world, and that it’s unreasonable for players to have any expectations regarding the other beings they interact with?
|
|
Clerics can make scrolls and sell them. How long does it require for those spells to not be uncommon anymore?
That’s 1e thinking. In 2e NPCs don’t follow the same rules as PCs. For
instance they don’t make scrolls. Scrolls simply exist or don’t exist because the GM says so. Also they don’t engage in commerce unless the GM says so. Likewise there is no narrative logic underlying their existence unless the GM says so.