Opinion: Rarity currently covers too many distinct concepts

[The Raven Black]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

It does two things, and does them well... not sure how that is too much.

Because it mixes them and tries to do both at the same time. When they are actually really different.

[Kobold Catgirl]

It kind of does 4-5 things, too. Power level, mood & tone, general weirdness, how well it fits Golarion's lore... like, it's wearing a lot of hats.

[PossibleCabbage]

It feels like the tone and general weirdness parts of rarity are free since they're just supported by enabling the GM to say "no" with minimal friction.

[BooleanBear]

It really is just a “check with your GM” indicator. Unfortunately, it doesn’t give any info to the GM about WHY it needs to be checked. The fact that the naming conventions for it are based on the concept of “rarity” doesn’t help the issue when the reason is often not based on in-lore rarity at all. I’d rather my players check in about Teleport and not Boneshaker or a Katana, but the rules put all of them at the same level.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

The Raven Black wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

It does two things, and does them well... not sure how that is too much.

Because it mixes them and tries to do both at the same time. When they are actually really different.

Yes, but the reason it does those two things is the same... so doing it at the same time is fine imo.

It is a "ask your gm" tag with guidance that "uncommon can be bought or obtained with player initiative but isn't the default assumption like commin, rare cannot and is purely in the purview of the gm and unique is unique"

It is a blanket accessibility tool for reducing strain on GMs, it doesn't really have to give any more information as to why outside of the rarity text in the crb which says what I said before. Why does it matter if an option is restricted for worldbuilding effect or because it is from a different region.
Ask the gm

[Dancing Wind]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

It is a blanket accessibility tool for reducing strain on GMs, it doesn't really have to give any more information as to why outside of the rarity text in the crb which says what I said before. Why does it matter if an option is restricted for worldbuilding effect or because it is from a different region.

Ask the gm

It only reduces the strain on the GM if the GM is the game designer/writer. My problem is that in Paizo-published material, I don't always know whether the designer restricted it for game balance or regional flavor.

It matters because it causes MORE work for a GM to try to figure out what the game designers were thinking when they assigned that trait to that rule/item/creature. And if I don't know why it was restricted, then I don't know the impact on the adventure if I allow it at my table.

Which is exactly why I end up using PFS rulings, even for my home games. They have conversations with the design team. They have far more information than I do when trying to decide what to allow in my games.

[Jacob Jett]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

It does two things, and does them well... not sure how that is too much.

Because it mixes them and tries to do both at the same time. When they are actually really different.

Yes, but the reason it does those two things is the same... so doing it at the same time is fine imo.

It is a "ask your gm" tag with guidance that "uncommon can be bought or obtained with player initiative but isn't the default assumption like commin, rare cannot and is purely in the purview of the gm and unique is unique"

It is a blanket accessibility tool for reducing strain on GMs, it doesn't really have to give any more information as to why outside of the rarity text in the crb which says what I said before. Why does it matter if an option is restricted for worldbuilding effect or because it is from a different region.
Ask the gm

Unfortunately, from my perspective as a GM, rarity is often a make work rule for me. If my players are asking, "mother, may I" in one place, then my energy is sapped elsewhere. So. It doesn't work as intended. Reading between the lines to divine what authors intended is a game I prefer not to play.

One of the advantages Hero had as a game system is that the authors put stop signs on game mechanics that had a tendency to affect game balance. You knew directly what the intention was. IIRC, they also had warning signs on mechanics that could be situationally game bending.

Ultimately though, what I remember about the good old days (of D&D2) is that we had a better time any time we said yes to someone's harebrained game rule breaking idea and ignored the Gygaxian lines that had been drawn for us.

[Arutema]

I wonder how much headache Paizo could have spared GMs if there was simply another value for rarity: Regional. Thus, something could be "Regional (Vudra)" or "Regional (Arcadia)" instead of the blanket "Uncommon".

[Squiggit]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

If we allow for better things to be possible when someone figures out how to do them (and Pathfinder's past has things like flying cities and sentient automata), then the natural way to talk about their place in the world is with Rarity.

No, the natural way to talk about something being better is via level, because that's literally what the mechanic represents.

Using rarity to relate to power but only sometimes is just poisoning the well.

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

It is a blanket accessibility tool for reducing strain on GMs

Having to analyze items to determine whether something is rare because it's supposed to feature uncommonly in the setting or because a Paizo designer was having an off day and made something broken doesn't really reduce the strain on me though. It's what I had to do in PF1 too.

And if the goal is to reduce the strain on me, I don't see how that's an argument against having some sort of indication for items that are especially disruptive or mechanically problematic.

[Jared Walter 356]

Jacob Jett wrote:

Unfortunately, from my perspective as a GM, rarity is often a make work rule for me. If my players are asking, "mother, may I" in one place, then my energy is sapped elsewhere. So. It doesn't work as intended. Reading between the lines to divine what authors intended is a game I prefer not to play.

In my experience, it's been exactly the opposite. I don't have to screen 100s of options and ban them one by one, I screen when the player requests an uncommon or rare option.

In one of my current camp gains, a player wants a new spell, I read it and say ok, or read it and say, I'll build it into the story, or read it and say no that spell will interfere with the story. I can do this screening at my leisure between sessions, and he has time to make other choices if needed. At least I know ahead of time whether a character choice will kill a storyline or trivialize an encounter or challenge.

As opposed to another player I've had suddenly announcing mid game that he has some new obscure ability from a source book I haven't read, and I have to screen it on the spot, and pause the game to do so, no thanks.

[Temperans]

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

Jacob Jett wrote:

Unfortunately, from my perspective as a GM, rarity is often a make work rule for me. If my players are asking, "mother, may I" in one place, then my energy is sapped elsewhere. So. It doesn't work as intended. Reading between the lines to divine what authors intended is a game I prefer not to play.

In my experience, it's been exactly the opposite. I don't have to screen 100s of options and ban them one by one, I screen when the player requests an uncommon or rare option.

In one of my current camp gains, a player wants a new spell, I read it and say ok, or read it and say, I'll build it into the story, or read it and say no that spell will interfere with the story. I can do this screening at my leisure between sessions, and he has time to make other choices if needed. At least I know ahead of time whether a character choice will kill a storyline or trivialize an encounter or challenge.

As opposed to another player I've had suddenly announcing mid game that he has some new obscure ability from a source book I haven't read, and I have to screen it on the spot, and pause the game to do so, no thanks.

Except that they can still pull that because not everything from new books is uncommon. The fact is labeled as uncommon does nothing to stop a player from taking an ability that would be disruptive but was labeled common.

This is why rarity is doing multiple jobs. They say its just how prominent it is in the setting. But in actual practice they just use it to limit options that are either too powerful or too out of the box. Regardless of how prominent that magic has been or would be in the setting. Case and Point: Dogslicers are supposed to be extremely common being the favored weapon of goblins, but its listed as uncommon because of all the traits. Rope darts? Also should be common. Clan Daggers are literally given to every dwarf for free, yet that is uncommon. Level 1 spellcasting, which everyone can effectively do now is apparently uncommon. Even just a basic armored coat...

Tell me, how has the Bottomless Purse not become common given you can literally sell anything and everything for the low low price of half a consumable?

[Jacob Jett]

"Rarity" is a pretty classic case of semantic overloading.

[eddiephlash]

I consider myself a fairly new GM still, even after playing for a couple years, I've still only ran games with my one group.

How I handle rarity, isn't something I've ever thought very intentionally about.

Common things are things they can assume freely exist in the world. Things they can buy in stores, types of people they interact with on a semi-regular basis, deities they've heard of, abilities they are expected to be able to learn, etc.

Uncommon/Rare things are always "just ask me first". I'll probably say yes, unless I don't think it fits with the themes/setting/mechanics as we've been playing.

This is definitely not a one size fits all. Some uncommon things that are a hard "no" in a small town might be available in a larger town. Or I might bump up the price. For uncommon/rare feats they want to take, I usually want an in-character/story reason why it makes sense for them to have access to this thing.

The game I run is fairly globe-trotting, so most things have been/will be on the table at some point, but if I were running a more region-specific campaign, like Frozen Flame, then these things would be MUCH harder to come by, and even some common options could be locked out.

[The Raven Black]

Temperans wrote:

Jared Walter 356 wrote:

Jacob Jett wrote:

Unfortunately, from my perspective as a GM, rarity is often a make work rule for me. If my players are asking, "mother, may I" in one place, then my energy is sapped elsewhere. So. It doesn't work as intended. Reading between the lines to divine what authors intended is a game I prefer not to play.

In my experience, it's been exactly the opposite. I don't have to screen 100s of options and ban them one by one, I screen when the player requests an uncommon or rare option.

In one of my current camp gains, a player wants a new spell, I read it and say ok, or read it and say, I'll build it into the story, or read it and say no that spell will interfere with the story. I can do this screening at my leisure between sessions, and he has time to make other choices if needed. At least I know ahead of time whether a character choice will kill a storyline or trivialize an encounter or challenge.

As opposed to another player I've had suddenly announcing mid game that he has some new obscure ability from a source book I haven't read, and I have to screen it on the spot, and pause the game to do so, no thanks.

Except that they can still pull that because not everything from new books is uncommon. The fact is labeled as uncommon does nothing to stop a player from taking an ability that would be disruptive but was labeled common.

This is why rarity is doing multiple jobs. They say its just how prominent it is in the setting. But in actual practice they just use it to limit options that are either too powerful or too out of the box. Regardless of how prominent that magic has been or would be in the setting. Case and Point: Dogslicers are supposed to be extremely common being the favored weapon of goblins, but its listed as uncommon because of all the traits. Rope darts? Also should be common. Clan Daggers are literally given to every dwarf for free, yet that is uncommon. Level 1 spellcasting, which everyone can effectively do now is...

I would be interested in the Common abilities that you find disruptive.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Weapons exclusive to a single ancestry are Uncommon because most people are not that ancestry.

Also, I've been in home games that banned Common ancestries. There is a nonzero chance that even if a new ancestry was made Common, PFS might still prefer to limit access to it. I feel like that's worth keeping in mind when we talk about rarity. I don't know if I'm really talking about anyone in this thread, per se, but I'd rather not give extra attention to the other thread.

[Trixleby]

egindar wrote:

An additional factor at play is backmatter player options in APs being marked with rarity tags by default, while also more prone to being too strong due to having less time to bake.

So it's not just options like teleportation that are orthogonal to adventure design but (in theory) balanced against the level they're given, but options like Pin to the Spot that are just straight-up stronger than they should be.

I imagine this would make me quite an unpopular DM...but I would personally, for my games, prefer to probably just Ban AP Specific Feats and stuff. Like Drow Shootist Dedication is specific to an AP, and probably designed around and intended for that specific campaign/setting/AP.

I'm not sure it should be in "any old game" or another AP. Just my opinion.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

I think the rarity system deserves more credit for making the game one where GMs can say yes rather than no. Is it using a few too many hats? Maybe. But I note that most of the regional items have access requirements that indicate that if you're from that region, you can take the item.

I think it is mostly working as intended.

Hmm

[keftiu]

Trixleby wrote:

egindar wrote:

An additional factor at play is backmatter player options in APs being marked with rarity tags by default, while also more prone to being too strong due to having less time to bake.

So it's not just options like teleportation that are orthogonal to adventure design but (in theory) balanced against the level they're given, but options like Pin to the Spot that are just straight-up stronger than they should be.

I imagine this would make me quite an unpopular DM...but I would personally, for my games, prefer to probably just Ban AP Specific Feats and stuff. Like Drow Shootist Dedication is specific to an AP, and probably designed around and intended for that specific campaign/setting/AP.

I'm not sure it should be in "any old game" or another AP. Just my opinion.

The Drow Shootist has little to do with AV’s plot and isn’t especially tailored to any content within… plus, players only get access to it in the final book, which makes it pretty useless for that campaign.

Backmatter Archetypes are never “specific to an AP.”

[Trixleby]

keftiu wrote:

Trixleby wrote:

egindar wrote:

An additional factor at play is backmatter player options in APs being marked with rarity tags by default, while also more prone to being too strong due to having less time to bake.

So it's not just options like teleportation that are orthogonal to adventure design but (in theory) balanced against the level they're given, but options like Pin to the Spot that are just straight-up stronger than they should be.

I imagine this would make me quite an unpopular DM...but I would personally, for my games, prefer to probably just Ban AP Specific Feats and stuff. Like Drow Shootist Dedication is specific to an AP, and probably designed around and intended for that specific campaign/setting/AP.

I'm not sure it should be in "any old game" or another AP. Just my opinion.

The Drow Shootist has little to do with AV’s plot and isn’t especially tailored to any content within… plus, players only get access to it in the final book, which makes it pretty useless for that campaign.

Backmatter Archetypes are never “specific to an AP.”

I have only GMed three times and I have never played an AP until now. I got dropped into the middle of AV at level 6. I don't know what book we are in or what's going on, really.

I've never played any published content before except for a few Pathfinder Seciond Edition Society Scenarios and Bounties. All of my experience with TTRPGs has been GMs making up their own homebrew worlds and settings.

So honestly I was just guessing about AP specific stuff.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Probably the best example here of AP-specific content is the Gatewalkers backgrounds, which are, as far as I can tell, objectively unbalanced compared to other backgrounds.

[PossibleCabbage]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Probably the best example here of AP-specific content is the Gatewalkers backgrounds, which are, as far as I can tell, objectively unbalanced compared to other backgrounds.

That's a tradition carried forward from PF1 where the campaign traits for an AP were sometimes much, much more powerful than standard traits were. The main difference is that you got 2 traits but 1 background.

[Dancing Wind]

James Jacobs touched on this here in a discussion about the Stolen Fate Player's Guide.

James Jacobs wrote:

For this one we tried something a bit different and gave these backgrounds a different take, giving them each a bonus action in place of skill training. For Shielded Fortune, if I recall correctly, we gave no skill OR lore training because the bonus feat it grants, Toughness, is a general feat, not a skill feat. Since general feats are earned less often than skill feats, giving it out as a bonus feat required a bit more give and take for that one.

THAT SAID: I really don't think it'll hurt your game balance much if you pick skill trainings for all of these feats, provided you let your players know what you're doing, and provided your players are only choosing these backgrounds. If they choose from the Core Rulebook, those backgrounds will feel lesser than these, which give everything a core background does PLUS a bonus action... so there's sort of a constant arms-race of option balance you might accidentally set up for yourself.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Yeah, I don't have a problem with it! It's cool and unique.