| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been converting the PF1 Ironfang Invasion adventure path to PF2, and one of the necessary changes is the treasure lists. Most PF1 treasure does not yet exist in PF2, and some items, such as Potions of Bull's Strength, never will. Thus, I often create new treasure lists for the existing adventures from scratch.
For rarity, I go by theme. Did the party look the body of some high-level commander of the Ironfang Legion? Then they get high-level common gear that resembles the gear of other commanders, such as the Hobgoblin General. Did the party find the bodies of deceased travelers in the nest of giant slicer beetles? Also common items. But did the party open a vault that has been hidden in a secret shrine for 1,000 years? That will contain several uncommon items. The story itself would have to insist on a rare item for one to appear.
And I don't control which magic items each individual character receives. The party decides that via their treasure division system. One character could prefer common items and another could prefer uncommon items, and it would not be my job to force them into balance.
As for rare ancestries or other character design options, the player has to justify it in a backstory. However, that backstory can be as simple as, "My character came from the exotic land where that ancestry is common."
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're basically a starting point for negotiations between players and GM. If something is common, the expectation is that you can take it without having to ask permission. If it's not common, then it's not guaranteed that you'll ever get that thing. But that doesn't mean uncommon things should be super rare (...)
It's important to look at WHY something isn't common. Typically it's one of the following:
* Class-Locked like focus spells where the only way to get them is to have a specific class feat or feature. This should really just have been a different trait, calling it Uncommon just confuses the issue. Let's leave this out of the discussion.
* Disruptive and that doesn't mean it's bad, just that the GM shouldn't get blindsided because a player took it without the GM signing off on it. Examples are spells to interrogate corpses (can really short-circuit a whodunnit adventure) and teleportation (GM had this whole journey adventure planned..) Things in this category are certainly a place where you can just say No, I don't want that in this campaign. But it's good to be upfront about that, so that players don't get frustrated trying to quest for it or anything. Which brings it to the next reason for not-common:
* Exotic it's a katana from the far east, or an elven curve blade in the middle of dwarf country, or a martial arts technique only taught in a specific monastery. It's not actually better or more powerful or disruptive, it's just supposed to be special. It'd be less cool if everyone was always taking it. Maybe it's a bit of genre you don't want in your campaign ("no Numerian extraterrestrial technology"). Again there's no guarantee for players that they can have this, but it's a lot more open for them to say "hey I want my character to go on a sidequest to try to get one of these things". They also make for interesting pieces of loot or quest rewards. Also, what counts as exotic depends on where you are. If you go to Minkai, over there katanas wouldn't be uncommon but maybe greatswords are. And, if the GM agrees, for example because it fits with a nice backstory, you could start with some of these things. It's not intended that you always have to pay with a feat or such to get these, it's just that the feats that give you proficiency with uncommon stuff tend to make sure you actually can get the thing you paid to be proficient with.
* Exotic and born with it stuff like uncommon ancestries and rare backgrounds. If the campaign is already going it's a bit late to go on a quest to become a different ancestry (usually..) This one is in the hands of the GM so they can say "nah, I don't actually want a party full of Blessed Changeling Androids..."
The books don't give you any kind of number of how many of these you should hand out because what they don't want is for players to say "you're supposed to give us at least so many". That doesn't mean you have to be really restrictive with them though. It's just that the starting point of the negotiation is supposed to be at that particular point.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I let the players do what they want as far as uncommon and rare options at character creation. I see no uncommon or rare options that exceed common options. I don't bother to limit anyone. There is no need.
The only time I would limit an option is if it caused an obvious and numerical advantage that limited the fun of other players.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rarity is just a tool for the GM - you don't have to use it, you don't have to be bound by it, and you can modify it and make rulings outside of it.
Unless you are playing PFS, EVERYTHING is subject to GM approval - if the GM doesn't bother to look over something or make any restrictions, that is still them approving things, they just stamped it without looking at what they where stamping.
I do recommend that you do use the rarity system though, it makes it easy to pre-approve stuff (like telling your players they can automatically have any common option) and it also acts as a kind of shorthand from the game designers to the GM that says "we think this option might cause some issues in some games" or "this thing is literally this rarity in the setting and should be harder to find for flavour reasons".
When you look over each character at character creation (and you really should be doing this, going into a campaign as a GM blind about what is on the character sheets is a really bad idea) you should at least look at each option with a rarity other than common and try to figure out why it isn't common. That helps to avoid being blindsided if those abilities do eventually cause problems.
But remember - you might use the rarity system to bind the players, but the GM doesn't need to be bound by it. If the rarity value of something doesn't make sense in your game, or you want to allow a rare thing or disallow a common thing, do it. The players agreed to play a game with a GM because they trust that the GM is smart enough to make the decisions that will make the game more fun. The social contract of the game is based on that assumption so they have more or less agreed to let you do that by agreeing to play.
As long as you are making these decisions in service to running a fun/interesting game (for everyone, including yourself), you are doing your job as a GM. Sometimes this goal is best served by restricting something. A mystery game isn't as fun if the wizard solves it instantly with a spell. A combat focused game isn't as fun if you just teleport past all of the combat. A player who wants to play an elf in a setting where there is only one elf left kind of needs no one else to be an elf for her character concept to work. A heroic fantasy where the party are the good guys is very difficult to make work with an anti-paladin in the party who literally has to be evil. A setting where all of the gods are dead and there is no divine magic left by definition requires you to restrict players from divine spellcasting. The "nothing should be restricted" viewpoint doesn't apply to every group and every game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When starting a new campaign, what guidance do folks use for incorporating Uncommon and Rare level items, ancestries, options, etc.?
Do you let the party as a whole have access to X number of these options over the course of a campaign? Or maybe each character gets access to one only? Is there "official" advice somewhere that I have missed?
For ancestries and heritages, I allow some and disallow others for all my players, depending on whether or not it fits the campaign. For example, in the Slithering campaign I'm working on, I allowed even the Rare Mwangi ancestries and not azarketi. In the Fall of Plaugestone, I allowed leshies but not hobgoblins, etc.
For archetypes, I make a list of thematically-appropriate archetypes, and allow the PCs to pick from that list, and only that list, for their Free Archetype.
Anything else I encourage players "ask me, the GM" and I'm not afraid to say no. For instance, one player wanted to play an Oozemorph for the Slithering, which I wasn't interested in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to allow Uncommon as a rule but you gotta ask about Rare. Rare stuff tends to be weird (not powerful just weird) and needs extra considerations on if it's suitable for the campaign.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a particular opinion about uncommon weapons. Hear me out.
The CRB and later books all have these ancestral weapons feats. The general pattern is: gain proficiency with some martial weapons, treat martial weapons in this list as simple, and advanced weapons in this list as martial. Also, gain access to any uncommon weapons in this list.
In PFS the "gain access" part has a tendency to take center stage. To get at certain uncommon weapons, you need these feats. The fact that you're probably already comfortably proficient with these weapons is a bit redundant. A swashbuckler getting an elven curve blade is taking a feat just to buy a weapon because they're already proficient with martial weapons, elven or not.
It gets weirder with Unconventional Weaponry. Yes, humans can take this to take, say, gnomish weapons, and get handy with uncommon gnomish weapons. But it's also alluded to that they can use this to get uncommon weapons from other cultures. So say, a country bumpkin from Brevoy could get access to a katana from Minkai. But what about a country bumpkin from Minkai? The katana isn't something from another country for him, it's from his own culture.
Would be pretty weird if it was harder to get weapons from your own culture than from another one, right?
I think the Minkaian country boy is supposed to not need the feat at all. Katanas aren't uncommon in Minkai, or at least shouldn't be. The fact that someone else can use Unconventional Weaponry to dial into katanas because they're common somewhere else means they're common somewhere else and you might be from elsewhere.
Likewise for an elf from Kyonin: elven curve blades shouldn't be uncommon for them. You shouldn't need a feat for that.
So what is the feat for then? Well, if you're an elven alchemist, you could learn to shoot a bow. Not a bad idea actually because at low level you don't have all that many bombs per day. Or if you're a wizard, you could brandish a longsword (if you think that's a good idea..) Or as an elven rogue, it'd let you use an elven curve blade, and at level 5, get to the critical specialization.
So my idea is that the main aim of these feats was never about giving access to uncommon weapons, but about giving you a proficiency in a higher degree of weapons (martial, advanced) specific to your ancestry. The "access to uncommon" bit is just a bit of due diligence to ensure that after buying this feat, you can actually use it even if the campaign starts nowhere near elven lands.
But if you're playing an elven swashbuckler, the GM should probably just allow you to start the campaign with an elven curve blade that you picked up 20 years ago when you were visiting your aunt in the home woods. You shouldn't need an otherwise entirely pointless feat for that.
And if you're a human living in say, Minkai? You can just get a katana. No feat needed. Well, assuming there isn't currently an evil shogun mandating that none of the peasants shall have weapons. (In that case, it's time to become a monk and/or pick up those "looks like agriculture" weapons.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It gets weirder with Unconventional Weaponry. Yes, humans can take this to take, say, gnomish weapons, and get handy with uncommon gnomish weapons. But it's also alluded to that they can use this to get uncommon weapons from other cultures. So say, a country bumpkin from Brevoy could get access to a katana from Minkai. But what about a country bumpkin from Minkai? The katana isn't something from another country for him, it's from his own culture.
{...}
And if you're a human living in say, Minkai? You can just get a katana. No feat needed. Well, assuming there isn't currently an evil shogun mandating that none of the peasants shall have weapons. (In that case, it's time to become a monk and/or pick up those "looks like agriculture" weapons.)
What annoys me about this feat is that someone living in Minkai is objectively worse at using that Katana or Daikyu than the Brevoy example, because it makes an uncommon weapon increase its proficiency. Which gives uncommon a mechanical benefit it is not supposed to have.
I get the feat, and get why it exists, but I think it misses the mark somewhat and probably should have a feat that allows a similar progression to common weapons. That would solve the issue from my point of view. Perhaps you'd get 2 common weapons or 1 uncommon to balance it out? It might fly narratively, as your chosen weapon would be unconventional for your class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My general rule of thumb is "check in with me if it is uncommon but I will probably allow it. Don't count on Rare things, and Unique is right out." Some of the rare options can be pretty disruptive. The backgrounds include things that really break the standard template. And spells include things like Anti Magic Field, which is a major headache in a game with this much magic equipment.
Some guidelines I use:
1) Only one PC can have a rare ancestry, heritage, or background; and that is the only rare option they can choose at 1st level (no Fleshwarp/Beastkin Feral Child, please*). Other rare options will need to be something that comes up during play or specifically sought after by the PC (often requiring additional research and/or travel). This helps keep rare options, well, rare and reduces the amount of effort to integrate the character.
2) For uncommon ancestries, heritages, and/or backgrounds, either only one PC can select a particular option (only one PC catfolk in the party, only one aasimar, etc.) or all PCs make the same thematic choice (for instance, a party of all genie-kin focusing on different elements).
I know people like for their PCs to be "different," but when the party starts to look like a bunch of "flavor of the week" choices it can distract from interacting with the campaign setting.
*- unless the character and their origin will be a central plot element for the entire campaign
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When starting a new campaign, what guidance do folks use for incorporating Uncommon and Rare level items, ancestries, options, etc.?
For ancestries, I’m inclined to just allow Uncommon without much thought at all, though I might prefer that the entire party not be a random assortment of Uncommon folk. The only time I’ve had anyone express serious interest in a Rare ancestry was when we started The Slithering, and I had literally said “This is your chance to play whatever crazy thing you want.”
But I’d probably not really object to a Rare ancestry choice anyway. Especially since PFS so tightly limits ancestry choices, in a home game I like getting use out of the books I’ve bought and would like my players to buy.
Items, feats, and backgrounds, I’m a little stingier with.
Re: uncommon equipment. Note that uncommon equipment such as clan daggers and elven curve blades often have traits (Dwarf trait for clan dagger, Elf trait for elven curve blade) that indicate they can be used by characters of that ancestry (as long as they a dwarf with proficiency in all simple weapons for the clan dagger or an elf with proficiency in all martial weapons for the elven curve blade) or indicate in the description the cultures where they may be common. Also, the text on uncommon items states: "Something of uncommon rarity requires special training or comes from a particular culture or part of the world. Some character choices give access to uncommon options, and the GM can choose to allow access for anyone." (emphasis mine)
Uncommon weapons are not the same as advanced weapons (that require special training for anyone). A character from Minkai can use a katana as well as any other martial weapon. A daikyu, however, is an advanced weapon and would require special training even for someone from Minkai.
Generally, I tell the players which Ancestries I'll allow at the start of a campaign. Talk to me if you really want something outside of that list and we'll see.
Otherwise, ask about uncommon stuff and generally I'll look at the current setting/situation and determine if it would make sense to appear / be available.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For acquiring uncommon or higher items I use a customised downtime action :
Search for item:
Downtime
Requires connections or bargain hunter or criminal connections or underground connections skill feat. (Or similar)
7 days of downtime, appropriate skill check vs a DC of the items level modified by the items rarity (hard for uncommon, very hard for rare).
Bargain hunter and such can then haggle as the earn income action.
So far it's worked well, mostly PC's try to snag formula this way and then have the crafter craft it if they need several.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless they're meant to be discovered as part of the AP I'd just let people have whatever rare and uncommon stuff they want, it's not like they're overpowered, it's usually just a flavour thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless they're meant to be discovered as part of the AP I'd just let people have whatever rare and uncommon stuff they want, it's not like they're overpowered, it's usually just a flavour thing.
Agreed, unless you're actively playing the AP the thing is found in, feel free to take something that looks cool that you found on AoN is my opinion. My players in one game I'm running have taken a few feats/items from different APs in our homebrew campaign because it suited what they wanna do with the character.