Rarity and access

[Temperans]

There was never a rule that entitled players to get anything. In fact from all the stories I have heard about entitled players, it usually had to do with:

1) Players getting over confident after a series of victories at the end of an Arc. Aka the Jock/Diva syndrome, where suddenly person who is good turns into an jerk after getting success.

2.A) The GM was too forgiving and soft. Aka the players took advantage of the GM to get what they want.

2.B) A player is extremely vocal and/or charismatic and tries to get his way forcefully. Aka a player or players convince the GM to change this.

3) A player is getting favors from the GM for some reason. Specially problematic when the GM and problem player are dating.

4) The player is a jerk. Aka why is this player even

[Luke Styer]

graystone wrote:

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.

I think the problem you’re having, which I share by the way, is that the rarity system is a mechanical implementation of a narrative element, and that’s often an awkward fit.

Mechanically, the possibility of scrolls undermines the mechanical statement that “This Weird Spell” is Uncommon. So why can’t I just buy a scroll of This Weird Spell? The only mechanical “justification” is “because it’s Uncommon,” which is nothing more than a loop.

The “justification,” then, has to be narrative, but none is offered, which is frustrating. There are all kinds of very reasonable narrative justifications, but having to come up with one yourself or accept one from some rando on the Internet is unsatisfying because this is clearly an element of the game world we’re being sold.

[thenobledrake]

The old rules did not "enable entitled players." They failed to set expectations.

You'd have players get blindsided by a GM saying "I don't want you to have that option in this campaign" because while the book definitely did say that a GM has final say on what goes, it wasn't front-and-center in the way that rarity tags are so a player could easily have missed it entirely, forgotten about it, or just not thought "that could apply here" because it seemed like that mention was just about asking for outlandish or extreme things which didn't seem like what they were doing at the time.

And you'd have GM's blindsided by players that had researched every option released for the game (possibly by multiple companies) and have stuff written on their character sheet that said GM doesn't even know what is, but they are super-excited to play, and maybe the GM is the one that missed the part of the book that's not front-and-center that says "you are allowed to say no to this", or things that bit of text isn't meant to apply to this rather than just outlandish and extreme options.

Then those mismatched expectations result in friction, and potentially to arguments, hurt feelings, and somebody feeling like someone else was being a jerk (which maybe they were being, but it's not inherently true).

The new rules put more effort into trying to set appropriate expectations. It's not fail-proof, because nothing ever is, but it is designed to reduce the number of times people get a surprise mismatch in expectations causing friction when they are trying to play the game.

[Zapp]

It's simple really.

Any and all GM instructions as to when and where it's appropriate to hand out stuff to player characters, is read by players as a binding promise that must be kept by said GM.

This is what drives these players nuts when all the rules is saying is "Ask your GM", since that places the power squarely where it belongs, in the hands of the individual GM.

[Temperans]

The problem with "Ask your GM" is not that it gives GMs more power (GMS already had practically infinite power in their games), the problem is that there is no default set of rules and in some cases there are few if any guidelines.

Its why Familiars, Recall Knowledge, etc. are can vary so much from table to table. One GM might make Familiar get a bunch of extra abilities making them very worth it, another might run it raw and make familiar pet rocks.

A player who can only plays sparingly or via PbP has to either make multiple character one for each version of the rules, or spend more time then is worth trying to figure out how 1 character who might leave/die right away works. Then repeat that for every new table/campaign and while needing to remember the difference between each table/campaign.

[Yossarian]

Temperans wrote:

The problem with "Ask your GM" is ... that there is no default set of rules and in some cases there are few if any guidelines.

Looks over at my (already) six books for pathfinder 2nd edition. Plenty of default rules and guidelines on display that I can see.

RPGs are run by a GM, if 'ask your GM' is not a reasonable action, then RPGs are not reasonable games. RPGs could almost be described as 4 hours of 'ask the GM'. That's what the game is.

Read the beginning of the book: it's clear that there is no expectation of rigid consistency for different tables. Trying to legislate the kind of consistency you are alluding to into existence is a fool's errand.

[Ubertron_X]

Yossarian wrote:

Read the beginning of the book: it's clear that there is no expectation of rigid consistency for different tables. Trying to legislate the kind of consistency you are alluding to into existence is a fool's errand.

Then why have rules at all? Or would you also accept to buy a copy of Risk, containing only half the rules, and an opening statement in the instructions that every table is different and is expected to come up with the other half of the rules?

As a rule of thumb every game rule that needs clarification, explaining, FAQ or guidance in order to enable consistent or even official play (in this case PFS) is most probably not worded appropriately.

[thenobledrake]

There are default rules and there are guidelines. Why table-variance exists is because there is no such thing as a rule that literally no GM will read differently from other GMs, and no such thing as a guideline that literally no GM will feel different about from other GMs.

Recall Knowledge, for example, sees so much variance because the GMs that read it have different personal opinions or preconceptions that lead to them wanting it to work in a particular way and then finding a way for that to fit the wording that is present.

The guidelines involved couldn't actually be clearer without being a literal flow chart covering every possible combination of traits that a monster could have to arrange every potential detail into an order of what counts as the "best-known attributes" and which "something subtler" comes up first.

[Yossarian]

Ubertron_X wrote:

Then why have rules at all?

As a rule of thumb every game rule that needs clarification, explaining, FAQ or guidance in order to enable consistent or even official play (in this case PFS) is most probably not worded appropriately.

No need to fail to reductio ad absurdum what I'm saying. I did not say we don't need rules or anything like that: I said that RPGs are by their very nature 'Ask the GM' games. Trying to strictly legislate rules to prevent that is a fool's errand.

Witness the vast numbers of FAQs 1st edition had. At least 2nd edition has attempted to reduce this somewhat by, instead of trying to legislate everything in advance, has handed more of it over to 'ask your GM'. RPGs are insanely complex things: anyone who believes rules can be set out that would never require subjective human interpretation hasn't played one.

[Ubertron_X]

Yossarian wrote:

No need to fail to reductio ad absurdum what I'm saying. I did not say we don't need rules or anything like that: I said that RPGs are by their very nature 'Ask the GM' games. Trying to strictly legislate rules to prevent that is a fool's errand.

Witness the vast numbers of FAQs 1st edition had. At least 2nd edition has attempted to reduce this significantly by, instead of trying to legislate everything in advance, has handed more of it over to 'ask your GM'.

As much as I wholeheartedly acknowledge that it would indeed be a fools errant to try having a waterproof set of rules for a complex RPG what is wrong in wanting to have a conclusive set of rules that reduces the "ask your GM" part to a mere minimum? Having said so my concern is not about "asking your GM" in general, because for the topic at hand - rarity - it works perfectly fine, but about how often I do need to "ask your GM" about rules or the absence thereoff for common occurances.

[Yossarian]

Ubertron_X wrote:

what is wrong in wanting to have a conclusive set of rules that reduces the "ask your GM" part to a mere minimum?

'Mere minimum' is a very loaded phrase.

Start with a very simple ruleset, such as FATE. It relies on a large amount of GM interpretation and has some pretty detailed guidance and rules for how to get consensus at the table: if a situation is questionable, the table votes on it.

Then consider a mid-level complexity ruleset such as 5e. It relies hugely still on GM interpretation, and usually plenty of house rules as well. Many have attributed its commercial success to having 'few' rules.

Then lastly consider Pathfinder. It has much more precise rules (and more rules) than the two prior mentioned games. It still requires plenty of ask the GM, but noticabely less so than them.

So, big picture: Pathfinder is already pretty close to your 'mere minimum', when viewing the hobby as a whole.

Then consider the diminishing returns you get by adding more rules to a game. Yes you could identify and list out the more common of the infinite number of edge cases that require arbitration. But where do you stop? Each extra detail added makes the overall rules more complex, and necessitates a longer than 600 page core rule book. And for every edge case you detail, you often create two more that need interpretation.

In other words, its much more efficient and playable to ask the GM, beyond a certain level of complexity. I'd suggest that Pathfinder 2e is about the maximum level of complexity one would want before the game starts to get really niche. Sure, add another 300 pages of detailed rules, create a 900 page core rule book, and probably lose sales. Bad trade imho.

[Aratorin]

I don't know that complexity equates to lost sales. The MTG rule book is 199 pages of legalese, by far the most complex card game rules on the market, yet it's still wildly popular.

I think people are smarter and more willing to embrace complexity than you give them credit for.

5E may be a success compared to 4E, but not compared to 3E, and a lot of that success is simply bleed over from MTG.

[Zapp]

Temperans wrote:

The problem with "Ask your GM" is not that it gives GMs more power (GMS already had practically infinite power in their games), the problem is that there is no default set of rules and in some cases there are few if any guidelines.

That really isn't a problem, at least not a big enough problem to sacrifice "ask your GM" over.

The easiest solution, after all, is to simply assume a default guideline of ZERO non-Common rules elements.

Then, as the presumably timid GM gets more comfortable, he or she can add in Uncommon/Rare stuff at his or her own pace.

Under no circumstances would it be a good idea to go back to a rulebook prescribing when and where Uncommon stuff can be had, since that immediately re-enables the player who nags himself into the requirements for said conditions.

So again "ask your GM" is the best, and only, real solution :)

Quote:

One GM might make Familiar get a bunch of extra abilities making them very worth it, another might run it raw and make familiar pet rocks.

No, this suggests that by RAW, familiars are useless rocks. Without getting into the debate whether this true or not - if YOU truly believe that, simply don't play a character that gets a familiar.

[Zapp]

Yossarian wrote:

I'd suggest that Pathfinder 2e is about the maximum level of complexity one would want before the game starts to get really niche. Sure, add another 300 pages of detailed rules, create a 900 page core rule book, and probably lose sales. Bad trade imho.

And I'd suggest PF2 is already well past that max level, and well into "niche game" territory, but I digress.

[Yossarian]

Aratorin wrote:

5E may be a success compared to 4E, but not compared to 3E, and a lot of that success is simply bleed over from MTG.

Your data is waaaaaay out.

Mike Mearls has said that 5e PHB has outsold the PHB sales for editions 3, 3.5 and 4. He told us this in 2016...

They later said, at the end of 2017, that that year was the best year for D&D sales in the game's entire history.

So 5e has vastly outsold all other editions.

MTG has next to nothing to do with it.

I'm not using this to argue Pathfinder should be simpler. It has it's niche, and it's a glorious one! But it's hard to argue that it should be even more complicated.

[thenobledrake]

Aratorin wrote:

I don't know that complexity equates to lost sales. The MTG rule book is 199 pages of legalese, by far the most complex card game rules on the market, yet it's still wildly popular.

I think people are smarter and more willing to embrace complexity than you give them credit for.

That's not a fair comparison.

Magic: the Gathering is a game simple enough that a person can pick up a starter product and learn the basics of play from a little fold-out pamphlet, and cards often include the entirety of their rules printed on the card. No one is actually expected to have their first learning of the game rules be from reading the 199 page book you mention - a 36 page booklet with a lot of art, maybe, but the comprehensive rule book has this wonderful little "The Comprehensive Rules of Magic is a reference document that holds all of the rules and possible corner cases found in Magic. It is NOT meant to be read beginning to end; instead it's meant to be consulted when specific rules questions come into play." blurb.

Where-as it actually is a totally normal expected method of learning the game to pick up the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and read it, and the size and complexity of a book-based game absolutely does contribute to sales figures (some sales gained because to some folks big-honking-book and/or high degree of complexity is a draw, some sales lost because to some folks those things are unappealing... and the relative success levels of various games with similar styles genres and themes tending to favor the less complex games overall, though not necessarily on grounds of lower level of complexity alone).

[Saedar]

Can we kill the edition war stuff? Pretty sure it actually violates forum guidelines.

[thenobledrake]

Aratorin wrote:

Well yeah, when you make everyone buy a physical copy, and then buy it again on DND Beyond, you get a lot of sales.

Guess what's not how things work? This.

No company has the ability to "make everyone" do anything. They make a product, and people decide if it is worth paying for.

You not thinking said product is worth paying for does not mean everyone else that does is a "gullible customer."

And in both your cases of trying to claim it was the re-selling the same product that lead to having the top spot in their respective markets, I'm pretty sure you are incorrect and both had already outdone prior products before the "re-sell."

[Temperans]

I never said that the game shouldn't have parts that are "Ask your GM", because I know (and think its kind of obvious) that you can't make a 100% accurate rule book without draining all the excitement from everyone.

My qualm is with the frequency and often purposefully vague wording that many of the rules have.

Recall Knowledge being a perfect example. Where the game doesn't really tell you or give adequate guidelines. All you know is that the GM will give you some info, that might not even be relevant.

*****************

In the context of Rarity, "Ask your GM" would had worked fine if Uncommon wasn't an automatic ban. Because as I previously stated, I would never ask for an uncommon item/ability unless told I had access: and as a GM the idea that two people in the same group group have entirely different item access without any reason bothers me extremely.

Unless, its something like items belonging to some organization or culture, I see zero reason to limit things based on "Player X has access to Y type of items because a feat said so".

*****************

P.S. 5e has done so good because of good marketing. They have Brand name recognition, portayal in Stranger Things introducing it to normal people, and being made so stupidly simple/barebone for players. The reason why it sold so much is definetly because of DnD beyond whose entire model is selling microtransactions of an effectively free product.

[PossibleCabbage]

Yossarian wrote:

RPGs are run by a GM, if 'ask your GM' is not a reasonable action, then RPGs are not reasonable games. RPGs could almost be described as 4 hours of 'ask the GM'. That's what the game is.

I mean, I just can't see how "Is there a chandelier, and do I see a rope I can cut to make it drop?" is be a question a player can ask a GM (and 100% it is) but "is there an elven smith at the market, and do they have a curve blade for sale?" isn't.

[thorin001]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

RPGs are run by a GM, if 'ask your GM' is not a reasonable action, then RPGs are not reasonable games. RPGs could almost be described as 4 hours of 'ask the GM'. That's what the game is.

I mean, I just can't see how "Is there a chandelier, and do I see a rope I can cut to make it drop?" is be a question a player can ask a GM (and 100% it is) but "is there an elven smith at the market, and do they have a curve blade for sale?" isn't.

The problem is that the second question may have two different answers for two different characters in the same game. If you do not have the requisite ability the answer is always no, even if the guy next to you, who has the requisite, is currently buying said curve blade.

[Saedar]

thorin001 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

RPGs are run by a GM, if 'ask your GM' is not a reasonable action, then RPGs are not reasonable games. RPGs could almost be described as 4 hours of 'ask the GM'. That's what the game is.

I mean, I just can't see how "Is there a chandelier, and do I see a rope I can cut to make it drop?" is be a question a player can ask a GM (and 100% it is) but "is there an elven smith at the market, and do they have a curve blade for sale?" isn't.

The problem is that the second question may have two different answers for two different characters in the same game. If you do not have the requisite ability the answer is always no, even if the guy next to you, who has the requisite, is currently buying said curve blade.

Even if the way you characterize it is true, and I'm pretty confident it isn't, it could be for entirely different reasons in-narrative. Maybe the merchant is a bigot? Maybe the other character has earned respect from the merchant and/or their guild?

Likewise: The GM could just say "yeah. go ahead and buy a curve blade, I guess."

Ya'll need to boot the toxic people out of your games and your lives.

[Temperans]

Racism is something that shouldn't be hard coded into the rules and should be optional, but that is what you just described. But clearly its not the case cause of Adopted Ancestry which makes things even more confusing and inconsistent, is the merchant a racist or not?

And if its about respect from a guild/merchant, it doesn't explain how you can go to an entirely different country and still have those benefits. Is the merchant/guild following you around to keep you supplied?

Also, no merchant or smith worth his salt is going to turn down money unless they are planning some scheme or honestly hate the client. But if a merchant really hated a client, they wouldn't even sell common items or have a huge mark up pool cost, which is punishing you for not being a certain race (sounds a lot like descrimination).

[Saedar]

Temperans wrote:

Racism is something that shouldn't be hard coded into the rules and should be optional, but that is what you just described. But clearly its not the case cause of Adopted Ancestry which makes things even more confusing and inconsistent, is the merchant a racist or not?

And if its about respect from a guild/merchant, it doesn't explain how you can go to an entirely different country and still have those benefits. Is the merchant/guild following you around to keep you supplied?

Also, no merchant or smith worth his salt is going to turn down money unless they are planning some scheme or honestly hate the client. But if a merchant really hated a client, they wouldn't even sell common items or have a huge mark up pool cost, which is punishing you for not being a certain race (sounds a lot like descrimination).

On the other hand, games are socially contextual. It doesn't really matter what a merchant on the other side of the planet would do at a given moment because all that matter is what is happening right there where the players are at.

[PossibleCabbage]

thorin001 wrote:

The problem is that the second question may have two different answers for two different characters in the same game. If you do not have the requisite ability the answer is always no, even if the guy next to you, who has the requisite, is currently buying said curve blade.

I disagree. The feat that grants access to something means "you know a place to get this" not "literally anywhere you are, you can get this."

[Kasoh]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

thorin001 wrote:

The problem is that the second question may have two different answers for two different characters in the same game. If you do not have the requisite ability the answer is always no, even if the guy next to you, who has the requisite, is currently buying said curve blade.

I disagree. The feat that grants access to something means "you know a place to get this" not "literally anywhere you are, you can get this."

That largely depends your definition of access, doesn't it? If a PC is going to spent a feat gaining access to game element, then it should be available to them most of the time. For equipment, that means that if the PCs are in a place where they can purchase items, the PC can get ahold of the item. There's a dozen ways to justify it which will vary table to table and not really relevant.

Really, what I don't know how to handle is if PCs buy access to items then just swap items around between themselves. Not usually a problem, given that PCs don't often use the same weapons, but it occurs to me that one person could gain access to a rules element and just be the dealer for the entire party.

[Luke Styer]

thorin001 wrote:

The problem is that the second question may have two different answers for two different characters in the same game. If you do not have the requisite ability the answer is always no, even if the guy next to you, who has the requisite, is currently buying said curve blade.

And that's because of the issue I spoke about earlier, rarity, as implemented, is usually a mechanic that isn't properly tied to the narrative.

I like the idea of rarity, but I would like to see a little more guidance in terms of the narrative element.

[Luke Styer]

Saedar wrote:

Even if the way you characterize it is true, and I'm pretty confident it isn't, it could be for entirely different reasons in-narrative. Maybe the merchant is a bigot? Maybe the other character has earned respect from the merchant and/or their guild?

There is usually a way to narratively justify the rarity mechanic, but the rules are silent, which is a problem because this is a case of mechanics muscling in on what would otherwise be a purely narrative question.

[Luke Styer]

Temperans wrote:

Also, no merchant or smith worth his salt is going to turn down money unless they are planning some scheme or honestly hate the client.

There have been times and places in real history where merchants and smiths worth their salt have turned down money because there was some competing force that motivated them.

Pathfinder is pseudo medieval/renaissance, so guild influence doesn't seem unbelievable. Historically guilds set both minimum and maximum prices for goods and services, and managed, for some period of time, to somewhat effectively enforce them. I'm sure there were stranger guild restrictions, too. The threat of being thrown out of the guild and losing one's livelihood might be a good reason for a merchant worth his salt to turn down money.

Have you ever seen a store advertise alcohol or tobacco at "state minimum prices?" In some U.S. states it's literally a crime for a licensed seller of alcohol to sell below a given price. At least until fairly recently it was literally a crime in some U.S. states for producers of alcohol to sell directly not only to consumers, but to retailers. Some states literally required (and may still, I'm not sure) a distributor in between, whose only real function was to buy from the manufacturer and sell to the retailer. Laws don't have to be rational, and irrational laws can be a good reason for a merchant worth his salt to turn down money.

Quote:

But if a merchant really hated a client, they wouldn't even sell common items or have a huge mark up pool cost, which is punishing you for not being a certain race (sounds a lot like descrimination).

Bigotry is one reason that a merchant otherwise motivated by desire for money might turn it away. Even a non-bigot might turn away good money out of fear of the reaction of his bigoted neighbors. That sort of narrative justification strikes me as an ugly reminder of the real world, though, so it's not where I'm likely to want to go.

[PossibleCabbage]

Kasoh wrote:

That largely depends your definition of access, doesn't it?

I just laid it out as meaning:

- You can start with one of these.
- In downtime between chapters, you can get another one: you know where they are and can go there and come back.

[Temperans]

Guild in medieval time were often City wide, at best they were country wide. You wouldn't expect a Guild from one country to have power over a Guild in another country.

I do get that guilds would put restrictions, but it makes no sense for a guild to ban all sale of an item unless you a feat (2 with Adopted Ancestry). If we were talking about a guild blacklisting a PC, that sounds like something that should happen for narrative reasons, not just because a PC didnt take a feat.

Also I am not sure what your respons to the second part means. Are you agreeing that a merchant who is racist, homophobic, bigoted, etc. would not sell anything to a PC who met his negative view? Also I agree that this type of thing makes the game really unconfortable, but so far its one of the few explanations for the weirdness of Rarity.

[Luke Styer]

Temperans wrote:

Guild in medieval time were often City wide, at best they were country wide. You wouldn't expect a Guild from one country to have power over a Guild in another country.

Sure. My point isn’t that any one reason explains every instance of a “merchant or smith worth his salt” turning down money, just that there have been and are reasons, some of which are reasonably applicable to the average Pathfinder setting.

Quote:

Also I am not sure what your respons to the second part means. Are you agreeing that a merchant who is racist, homophobic, bigoted, etc. would not sell anything to a PC who met his negative view?

Yes, though that’s not the sort of thing I really want in my game, it’s not unrealistic.

[Valentius]

I have been reading this thread from the beginning, and I have to agree with PossibleCabbage regarding access.

I think part of the problem is people are confusing the purpose of Rarity with the purpose of Access

How I understand rarity from a out of world, at the table, standpoint is that the uncommon (or rarer) tags are warning flags to both players and DMs that the item in question (whether it is a weapon, a spell a magic item or what-have-you) should be looked at and discussed by the table before play starts. Once play begins, anything that is Uncommon or rarer appears at the discretion of the GM (With the exception of a player having Access; I'll explain below) Now, the GM should take in to consideration just how rare the item actually is and how dedicated the character is to finding said object. Uncommon objects should be locatable with some effort. Think of it as a chance to role play.

Access, from my understanding, is a shortcut to obtaining an uncommon item. That said, it doesn't have to be an instantaneous or easy shortcut. Think of it like having a contact that can, and will, supply you with said item but that contact may not be local to where you are at any given time.

So how would I handle all this? Well, taking one of the hypotheticals from above lets say an adventuring party wanders into a small city and Players A & B are both looking to replace their Elven Curve Blades that were destroyed in the last adventure. Player A has Access to Curve Blades and Player B does not.

Situation 1: Both players state their intent to find replacement Curve Blades in town and after much searching, the GM tells them they find an old Elven smith who has a couple he's willing to part with for a price. Everything is hunky dory, Access is not needed, and the game can continue on it's merry way. The GM has used his prerogative to place the weapons in the path of the players.

Situation 2: Same as Situation 1 only there is no Elven smith in town. Player A, having access means he knows a way to acquire another blade (maybe even one for Player B depending on circumstances and the GM). How he acquires it will have to ne negotiated narrativly with the GM, but that is what role playing games are all about. Perhaps he knows of a craftsman back in Kyonin and he can spend his downtime traveling to get one (or have it sent to him) or perhaps he knows a traveling merchant who happens to pass through this city on a regular basis? In this example Player B is out of luck unless Player A can (or chooses) to use his access to get his buddy a new sword too.

Note that in Situation 1, the GM is not granting Access to either player. it's functionally no different than the GM placing a curve blade in a dungeon as treasure. However in that particular scenario, I would allow the characters to gain "Access" to curve blades if they devoted time and energy into developing a friendship/relationship with that Elven smith.

[Luke Styer]

craig williams 76 wrote:

How I understand rarity from a out of world, at the table, standpoint is that the uncommon (or rarer) tags are warning flags to both players and DMs that the item in question (whether it is a weapon, a spell a magic item or what-have-you) should be looked at and discussed by the table before play starts.

That’s clearly the out-of-world reasoning for rarity, but the problem is that it offers zero guidance on what that means in-world. I get that the rules make the spell Teleport is Uncommon because it has a strong potential to disrupt a campaign, but that tells me nothing about why it’s significantly more difficult to obtain in the world of the game. I believe the DC to create a scroll is slightly higher than that of a Common 6th level spell, and that explains it being a little more difficult to obtain, but it doesn’t justify the rigamarole that Uncommon indicates.

Quote:

Uncommon objects should be locatable with some effort.

But why, in the world of the game, does it take more effort to locate an Uncommon object than a Common object? I don’t think the books sufficiently address that.

Quote:

Access, from my understanding, is a shortcut to obtaining an uncommon item.

I’d go further and say that access often answers my complaint above because it often provides a narrative clue to why availability is limited.

[Ubertron_X]

This discussion gives me the idea for a gnomish weapons crafter PC, cranking out overpriced hooked hammers and flickmaces like no tomorrow... :P

[Tectorman]

Ubertron_X wrote:

This discussion gives me the idea for a gnomish weapons crafter PC, cranking out overpriced hooked hammers and flickmaces like no tomorrow... :P

And it reminds me of how I'd love to have my high-level Monk/Druid, at the end of her life and long after she's done adventuring, send out a call to all the bards and scholars of the lands, just to teach a weeks-long seminar on how to read, write, and speak Druidic with instructions to disseminate that knowledge as widely as possible.

[Valentius]

Luke Styer wrote:

craig williams 76 wrote:

How I understand rarity from a out of world, at the table, standpoint is that the uncommon (or rarer) tags are warning flags to both players and DMs that the item in question (whether it is a weapon, a spell a magic item or what-have-you) should be looked at and discussed by the table before play starts.

That’s clearly the out-of-world reasoning for rarity, but the problem is that it offers zero guidance on what that means in-world. I get that the rules make the spell Teleport is Uncommon because it has a strong potential to disrupt a campaign, but that tells me nothing about why it’s significantly more difficult to obtain in the world of the game. I believe the DC to create a scroll is slightly higher than that of a Common 6th level spell, and that explains it being a little more difficult to obtain, but it doesn’t justify the rigamarole that Uncommon indicates.

Quote:

Uncommon objects should be locatable with some effort.

But why, in the world of the game, does it take more effort to locate an Uncommon object than a Common object? I don’t think the books sufficiently address that.

Quote:

Access, from my understanding, is a shortcut to obtaining an uncommon item.

I’d go further and say that access often answers my complaint above because it often provides a narrative clue to why availability is limited.

1. The core rules aren't giving narrative reasons for rarity because not every game is going to be set in Golarion. By pointing out potentially problematic parts of the game by making them uncommon, rare or unique, the developers allow each individual gaming group assess those things and decide for their own table whether something should be uncommon or not. If you want examples of the rarity system being justified narratively, look to the Lost Omens product line for stuff that is designed specifically with Golarion in mind.

In short, it's your responsibility to come up with the narrative reasons something is not immediately or easily accessible to players in your own game. If you feel that the rarity rating of a particular thing is wrong, (whether is is too rare or not rare enough) then it is your right to change it for you game. This is something that GMs have been doing for decades and the developers have simply decided to acknowledge openly. Although I do agree the explanation could be made more clear.

2. I considered answering this question sarcastically. I honestly can't tell if you are asking this seriously or not. I will assume it's a honest and serious question and answer it thusly; Uncommon things are harder to find than Common items because there are less of them in the area that they are uncommon in, essentially.

Looking at uncommon weapons in the core book it usually boils down to them being culturally specific. Either the weapon is an Ancestral weapon created by a specific racial culture to fit their specific needs or aesthetic, like the aforementioned Elven Curve Blade, or it is a geographically based cultural weapon, like the Katana, Or it's religion based (which can also be geographically based). If you want an uncommon weapon, chances are you have to go to a culturally relevant place to get one, unless you somehow luck out and find one in a more convenient location (which is narrative license by the GM).

Uncommon Ancestries are a different thing. In general it's probably because the ancestry in question is either culturally or geographically isolated or the Ancestry is relatively young/new. In all these cases it boils down to the Ancestry not being as widely dispersed as the core Ancestries.

Spells are tricky only in their being so many ways to get spells, both as items (scrolls) and as casters. In all of the individual cases I could make for Religious casters vs Studied casters vs. Spontaneous casters, ultimately it breaks dawn to knowledge is power. The more widely a spell is dispersed the more like an opponent will have it or have a counter for it. Wizards are stereotyped as being pretty miserly with sharing spell knowledge and when was the last time you heard of any religion letting just anybody access to their private files/lore/doctrine? Druids don't even share their language with outsiders, let alone their secret magics.

Of course, this isn't to say that the rarity system a straitjacket. If something happens in game that should alter the rarity of a thing, then rarity of said thing should change. See Ubertron_X's Gnomish weapon crafter. I would rule that after a certain amount of time crafting and selling Hook Hammers and Flickmaces, their rarity would become common in that character's area.

[Luke Styer]

craig williams 76 wrote:

In short, it's your responsibility to come up with the narrative reasons something is not immediately or easily accessible to players in your own game.

But it’s a cumbersome responsibility because the designers introduced this weird mechanical/narrative hybrid without offering sufficient guidance on how to make sense of it.

Quote:

Uncommon things are harder to find than Common items because there are less of them in the area that they are uncommon in, essentially.

That circular logic sort of works for some Uncommon items such as those made of precious materials, which literally occur in smaller amounts, but not for everything.

Quote:

Spells are tricky only in their being so many ways to get spells, both as items (scrolls) . . . Wizards are stereotyped as being pretty miserly with sharing spell knowledge

Yes, so long as that stereotype holds for literally every Wizard who ever learns a given Uncommon spell we’re good. Also every Arcane Sorcerer who ever learns that spell.

Quote:

when was the last time you heard of any religion letting just anybody access to their private files/lore/doctrine?

“Just anyone” isn’t the issue. Someone, some time, some place who has the ability to make a scroll and the desire to spread the knowledge.

[PossibleCabbage]

I don't think it's "smiths won't sell you an elven curveblade unless you're an elf". I think it's more that most smiths won't bother making elven curve blades becuase they're unaware of them, don't think people are going to buy them, have no particular fondness for the weapon, etc. So you're just not likely to find them unless you're in a place where a lot of elves are.

Not the curve blade per se, but a lot of uncommon weapons are advanced and are thus less effective in the hands of non-experts than a regular old arming sword or spear. So you're not likely to have a lot of call for those.

But a good blacksmith can probably reverse engineer a bladed hoop or whatever if you bring them one. You just have to make it worth their time.

[thenobledrake]

Luke Styer wrote:

That circular logic sort of works for some Uncommon items such as those made of precious materials, which literally occur in smaller amounts, but not for everything.

Do you know where in your lcoal area you can stroll into a store and buy a 3 meter display port to hdmi cable? If you were looking for the services of a luthier, do you have one locally? What about custom machining, do you know where you can get that done in your area?

These are all examples of uncommon items in the real world because not every local area will have them, and even areas which do have them it is not guaranteed to be common knowledge that they are present because the desire for the items is not necessarily wide-spread either.

So yes actually, the "they are uncommon because there are less of them" logic does work for anything, since even the existence of "I'll just buy one on the internet" doesn't actually change how common these items are - it just provides more wide-spread ready access to them.