Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ThaiGQ 05-13-07, 07:13 PM	Hey guys, out of curiosity what's your take on flavored text for feats, spells, classes, etc...? Personally, I think it's just that...flavor and not a concrete definition by any means, just one person's (the author's) take on a particular subject. I only bring this up because I've been reading the boards for a while now and I occasionally see people bring up the flavored text as to how feats, spells, classes should work. Rather, I see the D&D character system as a way to build the character you want, with their own reasons for having certain abilities. For example, I don't think that just because the description in the book given for an Occult Slayer states that they hate spellcasters, this is necessarily true of all Occult Slayers. They just happen to be extremely effective at combating them with motivations that can range anywhere from hatred to simply realizing the threat that they pose and thus the character has learned techniques to combat them. Similarly, I don't necessarily agree that Barbarians can't be Lawful or that Paladins have to be Lawful Good. Why can't you have a law abiding Barbarian or a Paladin that shares the same alignment as their chosen deity or ideal? Also, I don't really see a problem with level dipping as, just like people, characters are hardly defined by any single "definition". I don't think there needs to be any justification at all for level dipping other than the fact that you think those abilities would fit your character concept.
King Kashue 05-13-07, 07:46 PM	For example, I don't think that just because the description in the book given for an Occult Slayer states that they hate spellcasters, this is necessarily true of all Occult Slayers. They just happen to be extremely effective at combating them with motivations that can range anywhere from hatred to simply realizing the threat that they pose and thus the character has learned techniques to combat them. Similarly, I don't necessarily agree that Barbarians can't be Lawful or that Paladins have to be Lawful Good. Why can't you have a law abiding Barbarian or a Paladin that shares the same alignment as their chosen deity or ideal? Those are not equivalent examples. "Hating" spellcasters is not a rules requirement, it's suggested, but even the flavor text allows for variation. Barbarians not being lawful and paladins being lawful good are mechanical issues. They're not the same. And in the case of Paladins, it's part of the definition of the term, it's not even a D&D thing...
Lupo 05-13-07, 08:01 PM	Hey guys, out of curiosity what's your take on flavored text for feats, spells, classes, etc...? Personally, I think it's just that...flavor and not a concrete definition by any means, just one person's (the author's) take on a particular subject. I only bring this up because I've been reading the boards for a while now and I occasionally see people bring up the flavored text as to how feats, spells, classes should work. Rather, I see the D&D character system as a way to build the character you want, with their own reasons for having certain abilities. For example, I don't think that just because the description in the book given for an Occult Slayer states that they hate spellcasters, this is necessarily true of all Occult Slayers. They just happen to be extremely effective at combating them with motivations that can range anywhere from hatred to simply realizing the threat that they pose and thus the character has learned techniques to combat them. Similarly, I don't necessarily agree that Barbarians can't be Lawful or that Paladins have to be Lawful Good. Why can't you have a law abiding Barbarian or a Paladin that shares the same alignment as their chosen deity or ideal? Also, I don't really see a problem with level dipping as, just like people, characters are hardly defined by any single "definition". I don't think there needs to be any justification at all for level dipping other than the fact that you think those abilities would fit your character concept. some of your examples are "flavor text" some are rules effects :) i have a character - actually a cohort - with levels in occult slayer, and his first level is wizard . . . . . . but he is likely to attack anyone in a red robe who isn't really quick to convince him that he isn't a member of the scarlet brotherhood who suppresses his species. i have seen characters with paladin levels doing or proposing totally unlawful and sometimes even evil actions . . . . and some of my characters have been brought to the very edge of death by members of a lawful neutral church, guess who the deity is :P conclusion: if the codex is a "rule item" better stick to it, unless you want to loose your character - or at least said class ;) if a codex is just "flavor", at least have a convincing story to support it, otherwise some DMs might not like your character :D characters who are not liked by a DM have a tendency to run out of luck sometimes . . . . . ciao martin m.
King Kashue 05-13-07, 08:27 PM	i have seen characters with paladin levels doing or proposing totally unlawful and sometimes even evil actions Well, without an atonement, they should be fighters without feats... if the codex is a "rule item" better stick to it, unless you want to loose your character - or at least said class ;) if a codex is just "flavor", at least have a convincing story to support it, otherwise some DMs might not like your character :D Just as a note, a codex is a book, particularly a manuscript book...
Timlagor 05-13-07, 11:20 PM	I think it should all be lemon-flavored.. though I suppose chocolate is ok too.
clannagh 05-13-07, 11:36 PM	Unfortunately it's a GM call and if you have a character that pushes the boundary sometimes it is sensible to choose your GM with care. In the case of Paladins my personal take is the Paladin is lawful good but how that is interpreted SHOULD be mitigated by the deity. A Paladin of Atroa (female "spring" deity characterised by optimism and forgiveness) for example may face a dilemna when faced with killing evil babies as they may be redeemable whereas a St Cuthbert paladin would have no such issues. On the other hand many GM's have a simplistic take on the matter and apply the one simplistic logic to all paladins regardless of deity. It's really a case of "know your GM". No sane person would play up in a game with a GM that believes playing up is stupid and characters that playup should be "taught a lesson" .... this example is no different.
Haro 05-14-07, 12:28 AM	Using a Paladin as example is one thing, however, there are PrCs that have no such 'Code of Conduct' rules restricting their behaviour. Clearly, the Occult Slayer (for example) is a PrC that was given a little extra power with an expectation by the author that PCs role-play the balancing aspect of the PrC. In this case it is the immense hatred of arcane spellcasting. What annoys me is that just because there isn't a 'Code of Conduct' explicitly written into the PrC, per the Paladin, some players blatantly choose the benefits of the class, whilst ignoring the disadvantages. I have sat at a table sporting an Occult Slayer with a Unicorn Sorceror for a cohort that she rode into battle. The Unicorn typically spent its actions buffing the Occult Slayer. Does anyone think that this isn't a disapponting exploit in the game? I know I had a bad taste in my mouth. Of course, the writer should have put in a 'Code of Conduct' class feature but since he trusted the integrity of the 'role players' that would enjoy the flavour, people can choose to ignore it, as flavour cannot be enforced by the RAW. Joe
King Kashue 05-14-07, 01:32 AM	Clearly, the Occult Slayer (for example) is a PrC that was given a little extra power with an expectation by the author that PCs role-play the balancing aspect of the PrC. In this case it is the immense hatred of arcane spellcasting. What annoys me is that just because there isn't a 'Code of Conduct' explicitly written into the PrC, per the Paladin, some players blatantly choose the benefits of the class, whilst ignoring the disadvantages. I have sat at a table sporting an Occult Slayer with a Unicorn Sorceror for a cohort that she rode into battle. The Unicorn typically spent its actions buffing the Occult Slayer. Does anyone think that this isn't a disapponting exploit in the game? I know I had a bad taste in my mouth. Of course, the writer should have put in a 'Code of Conduct' class feature but since he trusted the integrity of the 'role players' that would enjoy the flavour, people can choose to ignore it, as flavour cannot be enforced by the RAW. Joe Read the Occult slayer text. It even allows for Occult Slayers who still cast spells themselves. It also says it's a great PrC for people who have been victimized by spellcasters, and want to fight better against them. Personally, my CN Occult Slayer has a very strict code regarding what constitutes "responsible use of magic", namely "if you're on my side, it's responsible" :D Seriously though, I play him as a Erudite snob of sorts (in addition to a cold-blooded killer), and make an issue of "properly educated" casters (and individuals in general) and those who "show proper respect" for the knowledge they use and wield...Those who revel in their power, or seek to expand beyond their knowledge must be punished for their hubris...
Timlagor 05-14-07, 06:25 AM	Clearly, the Occult Slayer (for example) is a PrC that was given a little extra power with an expectation by the author that PCs role-play the balancing aspect of the PrC. In this case it is the immense hatred of arcane spellcasting. This isn't clear at all. It's clear that they were given abilities based on having a strong attitude to magic. It's also clear that hatred of all spellcasters is one valid way in which this could be played. There are plenty of other brackgrounds/philosophies that could explain those abilities. The other clear thing is that the rules are written with the expectation that there will be an Active GM capable of invoking "Rule 0" at any time to make sure that the game meets with their conception of their world and for the enjoyment of all. ...well it's clear that different people have radically different attitudes to this PrC too. Out of interest, do you also believe that people shouldn't be allowed to 'dip' Classes/PrCs? I have sat at a table sporting an Occult Slayer with a Unicorn Sorceror for a cohort that she rode into battle. The Unicorn typically spent its actions buffing the Occult Slayer. Does anyone think that this isn't a disapponting exploit in the game? I know I had a bad taste in my mouth. I think that this isn't a disappointing exploit. It may be that the player was a complete 'munchkin' and I would have hated his playstyle but his use of mechanics does not offend my by itself. You probably wouldn't approve of the OC with a Spellstoring Greatsword either ;) (he really gets a kick out of being able to hit casters with Touch of Idiocy though) Of course, the writer should have put in a 'Code of Conduct' class feature but since he trusted the integrity of the 'role players' that would enjoy the flavour, people can choose to ignore it, as flavour cannot be enforced by the RAW. That's pure opinion. Since it's clear from the class entry that the Occult Slayer can continue to cast their own spells, I have to wonder what the CoC would say.
Lupo 05-14-07, 06:32 AM	Well, without an atonement, they should be fighters without feats... me wasn't the DM in those cases. lately at a table a paladin was warned . . . . he decided not to do something "nasty" :rolleyes:. Just as a note, a codex is a book, particularly a manuscript book... yea, sometimes deep-in-the-night-typing causes mother tongue words and meanings to creep in, especially as "Kodex" (germ.) has both meanings, a book and a code or law of behavior ;) ciao martin m.
Haro 05-14-07, 07:10 AM	Gee, you have to love the selective use of the class entry text used by a couple of people here. So, please allow me to jump on the bandwagon; "Occult Slayers believe that mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic, and that those who dare to do so must be slain." To my way of thinking, that doesn't leave a lot of legroom for unicorn sorceror cohorts, wizards casting buff spells or any other benefits that an OC could possibly attempt to justify accepting.
_metz_ 05-14-07, 08:50 AM	meh it will happen all the time. Unicorns are magical beasts so I am ok with it klinda, but I do agree many characters play in a way that doesn't make sense considering flavour. (I used to have massive arguements with a guy over whether druids could give their animal companions metal barding - I said it doesn't make sense if the druid isn't allowed/doesn't want to wear it that they would impose it on thier animal, but hey its a matter of opinion.)
Iswald 05-14-07, 09:52 AM	Gee, you have to love the selective use of the class entry text used by a couple of people here. So, please allow me to jump on the bandwagon; "Occult Slayers believe that mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic, and that those who dare to do so must be slain." To my way of thinking, that doesn't leave a lot of legroom for unicorn sorceror cohorts, wizards casting buff spells or any other benefits that an OC could possibly attempt to justify accepting. That's just flavor text. If it were rules, you'd have mechanics for what happens if you didn't follow it. Have you looked at the example OC? Ranger 5, with enough wisdom to cast longstrider 1/day, not to mention possessing several magic items made by some kind of spellcaster.
Mommy was an Orc 05-14-07, 10:27 AM	That's just flavor text. If it were rules, you'd have mechanics for what happens if you didn't follow it. Have you looked at the example OC? Ranger 5, with enough wisdom to cast longstrider 1/day, not to mention possessing several magic items made by some kind of spellcaster. They've got explicit 'flavor' text explaining how a caster might take on that role and how other Occult Slayers might react to them. And there are actually mechanics for what happens - Weapon Bond is 'powered by hatred of spellcasters' - which is in the rules text. i.e. if someone doesn't sufficiently hate spellcasters in general, they don't get the extra damage.
Timlagor 05-14-07, 11:33 AM	That's ok I hate specific spellcasters: starting with *that* one! Do you care about your animals? Then why wouldn't you want to give them the best armour you can? Metal blocks a druid's connection to the land but the animal has no such connection to lose. ..not that I'd criticise someone for deciding that their druid doesn't want metal on their AC.
King Kashue 05-14-07, 01:32 PM	Gee, you have to love the selective use of the class entry text used by a couple of people here. So, please allow me to jump on the bandwagon; "Occult Slayers believe that mortals are too irresponsible to wield magic, and that those who dare to do so must be slain." So, other folks are selective using text for "ignoring" that...But you're not selectively using text when you ignore that Occult slayers explicitly can still cast spells themselves? Obviously not everyone is unsuitable to use magic (Or occult slayers would be required to stop all casting themselves), so why are you "staying in the spirit" when you contradict that passage, but everyone else is "ignoring the flavor text" when they contradict what you feel is important? As for Unicorns, they're not exactly mortals in the same way as humans, so even the flavor text doesn't apply to them directly... As for your claim that it represents a code of conduct, but the writers "trusted" people enough to not make it a rule (and everyone is betraying that trust), that's nonsense...Plenty of PrCs have explicit codes of conduct, and they're written right into the rules...A few pages earlier in CW, Knight Protectors, in CD: Sacred Fist, etc...If it was a code, it would be a code...
King Kashue 05-14-07, 01:34 PM	They've got explicit 'flavor' text explaining how a caster might take on that role and how other Occult Slayers might react to them. Where's the flavor text explaining how other casters might specifically react to a Caster Occult Slayer?
King Kashue 05-14-07, 01:35 PM	yea, sometimes deep-in-the-night-typing causes mother tongue words and meanings to creep in, especially as "Kodex" (germ.) has both meanings, a book and a code or law of behavior ;) Ja, ja, aber...Uh, that is to say, we don't speak your crazy Dwarven tongue on this forum ;)
opa 05-14-07, 02:11 PM	Well I play an Occult Slayer.. He took his first level of occult slayer, during Red Hand of Doom...after about the 5th time he was turned on his own party.... nearly killing party members.. He really hates casters.. There were 3 casters in that party.. a cleric, a wizard and a Theurge... and he travelled with them for months...long adventure... He didnt automatically hate them when he took his level, although he never did like one of them... he felt he was incompetent.. (more ammo for the PRC, and yes he did roleplay disliking that one in particular after the PRC) I believe that his experiences more than justified the class to him... He does hate casters and goes for them first all the time, because he hates having someone take his freedom of choice from him... He has in his past travelled with casters who have treated him well, it is even casting that has freed his mind.... So no he doesn't hate all casters, he believes the world would be a better place without them, but he also isnt an idiot...well close... but he has a decent wisdom... and hasnt forgotten all the times in his career that he has adventured with casters that werent out to get him and weren't completely incompetent... He views the casters he does associate with as tools.. He also has a ranger level a Hexblade level and a couple pious templar levels he is a worshipper of Kelanan he can curse, smite, and even cast himself although only 1 1st level spell.... (PROTECTION FROM EVIL) to keep himself from being controlled... so he doesnt hate himself either Harlech himself the example of the OS in the book can cast... oh and before you say that he "has chosen not to cast it" because the statblock doesnt tell you what he chose... Nexal Ebonleaf, the Darkwood Stalker and Altesia the Halfling Outrider (just two examples) are listed the same way, and I'm sure they didn't choose not to memorize their spell.. so yes I think people playing occult slayers should keep the flavor of the cless... and have it make sense to the character.. but no I don't believe a character with a level of Occult Slayer has to foam at the mouth and attack every caster he sees... the class doesnt even preclude you from being a caster and taking the PRC...
Mommy was an Orc 05-14-07, 02:27 PM	Where's the flavor text explaining how other casters might specifically react to a Caster Occult Slayer? Hmm? A Caster Occult Slayer considers other casters the exact same way that a non-Caster Occult Slayer does. Caster Occult Slayers 'are considered to have seen the error of their ways–although they may still cast spells, they rely primarily on their battle prowess...' They still want to kill casters just as much as the non-caster ones.
King Kashue 05-14-07, 02:41 PM	Hmm? A Caster Occult Slayer considers other casters the exact same way that a non-Caster Occult Slayer does. Caster Occult Slayers 'are considered to have seen the error of their ways–although they may still cast spells, they rely primarily on their battle prowess...' They still want to kill casters just as much as the non-caster ones. I didn't ask what the Caster Occult Slayer thought of casters... You said: "They've got explicit 'flavor' text explaining how a caster might take on that role and how other Occult Slayers might react to them." I'm not seeing anything on how other Occult Slayers react to Caster Occult slayers... I actually phrased my question wrong, asking how other casters might react to a caster occult slayer (though that's not a big deal, since you didn't actually answer that question either :P)
Mommy was an Orc 05-14-07, 02:58 PM	I didn't ask what the Caster Occult Slayer thought of casters... You said: "They've got explicit 'flavor' text explaining how a caster might take on that role and how other Occult Slayers might react to them." I'm not seeing anything on how other Occult Slayers react to Caster Occult slayers... I answered that anyway. Caster Occult Slayers 'are considered to have seen the error of their ways–although they may still cast spells, they rely primarily on their battle prowess...' i.e. Non-caster Occult Slayers consider caster Occult Slayers to have seen the error of their ways. It is in the first paragraph where it is describing how Occult Slayers view spellcasters. Spellcasters who have become Occult Slayers are described as being the exception.
MatteBlack 05-14-07, 03:10 PM	People blowing off the flavor text of a PrC to powergame it's features is sort of a pet peeve of mine but, basically I think most of the flavor text is fairly useless beyond getting a vibe for the spirit of the rule it is attached to when adjudicting grey areas.
ThaiGQ 05-14-07, 04:07 PM	Those are not equivalent examples. "Hating" spellcasters is not a rules requirement, it's suggested, but even the flavor text allows for variation. Barbarians not being lawful and paladins being lawful good are mechanical issues. They're not the same. And in the case of Paladins, it's part of the definition of the term, it's not even a D&D thing... I know that the flavor text for Occult Slayers and the mechanical issues of alignment for Barbarians and Paladins are different, but I was just adding my opinion on another set of restrictions which I don't think entirely make sense to me. Sorry, I probably should have used a better title for the thread. Or maybe better yet, not have mentioned it at all...at least not in this thread. :P That being said, I'm still not entirely sold on certain PrC's restricting how a character should behave. As I previously stated before, I see the character options offered as merely a method for players to create the type of character that they want to play and thus give them abilities accordingly. Don't get me wrong, I realize that level dipping in classes/PrC's can be abused by power gamers just looking to give themselves an extra edge, but if I envision my character to be an (semi-)intelligent and effective "commander" type who has no particular hatred of casters but is aware of their offensive capabilities and has learned how best to neutralize them, then why shouldn't I be able to take Occult Slayer without hating all/most casters in general? He similarly recognizes the threat of the big bad thrashers and accordingly tries to maintain the highest possible AC to reduce the chances of them taking him down with just 1-2 hard whacks. I realize that at the moment, I'm talking a lot about the Occult Slayer, but that's just the PrC that comes to mind most easily as I've seen quite a few comments on the forums about it (I'll be sure to let you know of any others I can think of so we can debate about those as well :P ).
TWG_Prometheus 05-14-07, 04:52 PM	I think it's safe to say that the Occult Slayer is one of those classes that probably should have had a Code of Conduct or additional prerequisites built in but doesn't. If the flavor text was ruled in a meaningful sense mechanically, it wouldn't be a very party-friendly class, but whatever. In a home game, the DM can do whatever he wants, of course. On the same token, if the Circle decided to add additional restrictions to the class, I could see that as being reasonable, although it probably would need to accompany a rebuild option for existing Slayers. Given the lack of such a ruling in Living Greyhawk, I don't see there being much that a table DM could do aside from requesting that the player mind their selection of PrC while roleplaying.
Haro 05-14-07, 05:18 PM	So, other folks are selective using text for "ignoring" that...But you're not selectively using text when you ignore that Occult slayers explicitly can still cast spells themselves? Uh, yeah. That's why I explicitly said I was jumping on the bandwagon of selectively using text. It works both ways.
King Kashue 05-14-07, 05:41 PM	Uh, yeah. That's why I explicitly said I was jumping on the bandwagon of selectively using text. It works both ways. I read your post as entirely facetious...If you were serious, and it wasn't actually saying "the rest of you are ignoring important stuff, so I'll show you the error of your ways and do the same", let me know...Otherwise, the implication of your statement is still "you guys = ignoring important stuff, me = not"...
King Kashue 05-14-07, 05:45 PM	I answered that anyway. Caster Occult Slayers 'are considered to have seen the error of their ways–although they may still cast spells, they rely primarily on their battle prowess...' i.e. Non-caster Occult Slayers consider caster Occult Slayers to have seen the error of their ways. It is in the first paragraph where it is describing how Occult Slayers view spellcasters. Spellcasters who have become Occult Slayers are described as being the exception. And you've perfectly highlighted one of the things that reveal it's just flavor text... If you've seen the error of your ways, you stop doing something that's an error...You don't keep doing it... The issue is "mortals should not use magic", and there are folks who want to read that as a code of conduct...However, if it's selective in a given instance (e.g., I can still use spells even though I feel no one should), why can't it be selective in other instances (e.g., the spellcasters I travel with are fine, since I've decided they use magic responsibly)?...
LachlarlanIII 05-14-07, 05:53 PM	I think it should all be lemon-flavored.. though I suppose chocolate is ok too. I like my text flavored with fava beans and a nice Quiante. :)
Mommy was an Orc 05-14-07, 06:00 PM	And you've perfectly highlighted one of the things that reveal it's just flavor text... If you've seen the error of your ways, you stop doing something that's an error...You don't keep doing it... There are all these casters running around loose. Someone has to stop them and you understand the threat they pose more than anyone. They're not about to tie their hand behind their back if you try to stop them, why should you offer to help them out? You're looking at it from a rational viewpoint. Every last piece of the flavor text of this PrC strongly implies that these people are off their rockers. Occult Slayers don't mind an Occult Slayer casting spells because they're just as dedicated to killing casters as the non-caster Occult Slayers. That's why they can be trusted...
Haro 05-14-07, 06:02 PM	I read your post as entirely facetious...If you were serious, and it wasn't actually saying "the rest of you are ignoring important stuff, so I'll show you the error of your ways and do the same", let me know...Otherwise, the implication of your statement is still "you guys = ignoring important stuff, me = not"... I'm rarely serious. So let's all assume I'm taking the mickey unless I specifically use Mr Angry Face. ;)
opa 05-14-07, 06:27 PM	Well I look at it this way.. "I', the real life me...hates drugs... hates.... I don't care to be around them, won't go somewhere if they are there, and leave if they come out... I also don't tend to befriend anyone, at least closely, that uses drugs... I do not believe that people/mortals can use drugs responsibly, I also agree that people with drug offenses should be heavily prosecuted.. It does not stop me from remaining friends with people that I have known for decades that have chosen to use drugs... I hate that they do, and we argue about it alot.. especially when one did mandatory minimum time for a drug offense... It also does not stop me from dealing with people on a business level, that I know use drugs... I also don't stop going to concerts because I am sure some stoner is sure to light up a joint within a few rows of me... Love is Love, and Business is Business.. Hate is Hate, and Life is Life... Sometimes you deal with things you "hate" for life to move on, or to make money (If I stopped booking bands because someone in them used drugs , I wouldn't last long) It's the real world and I hate drugs and don't think they should be around and that "mortals" are too irresponsible to "do drugs"... and it doesn't stop me from having friends that do them or working with people that do them... I just hate them... and I suppose if me smoking a joint would make all the heroin in the world go away, then I would do it... so to me playing my occult slayer the way I do doesn't feel like ignoring the Flavor Text of the class.. My occult slayer would have no reason to all of a sudden write off people he spent the better part of a year with, and who had saved his life multiple times..and who had helped him defeat mages and clerics bent on enslaving and taking over the region (although he does draw the line at being downright hostile to anyone casting evil or necromantic spells, at least within what he is able to do within the rules of the LGCS)..nor would he not cast a protection from evil to keep himself from being controlled by wizards... Its a question of the mission, and if he has travel with magic users even use it himself to rid the world of the "really big abusers of magic" then he will... when they are gone he'll deal with the others, then he'll give his "compadres" a chance to repent..... and then if he's the last guess he'd fall on his sword.. The circle let the class in with no restrictions..and I am sure they don't expect a character with Occult Slayer levels to back out of every slot he has signed up for at a con if a wizard has shown up at the table...and they certainly haven't granted them any rights within the LGCS to do anything about anyone casting at the table... with those things etched in stone.. players are left for a roleplayed reason as to why they haven't killed the wizard sitting at the gencon table next to them... The player of an Occult Slayer has to have a roleplayed reason why he isnt killing that mage.... the easiest reason is "the lesser of two evils".. he'll get to that other player when there is no other threats to the region.... luckily slot ends...poof, that player wizard vanishes from his life.... but the slayer marks him down in the book for future slaying... at least that makes for a playable table... its a game mechanics issue, the same way it is for and elf with favored enemy human to be sitting at a table with 5 humans... or my paladin to get stuck with 5 cutthroats...and end up playing a mod where I end up in the North Kingdom working for the legal hextorite authorities... You make do.. Its a friggin game... sometimes you have to roleplay a reason to fit the rules we have been given;) I can't see why you all put so much more emphasis on the "must be slain" flavor text than the "may still cast spells" part of the flavor text... the PRC does not require you to kill yourself the first time you cast a spell, nor lose benefits from the class if you do so...
Japangirl 05-14-07, 06:31 PM	Quiante. Quiante? I didn't know there were wines called Quiantes. Maybe you meant Chianti? ;)
King Kashue 05-14-07, 06:35 PM	I'm rarely serious. So let's all assume I'm taking the mickey unless I specifically use Mr Angry Face. ;) Right then, so it's "you guys = ignoring important stuff, me = not"...Which is bollocks ;)
LachlarlanIII 05-14-07, 09:28 PM	Quiante? I didn't know there were wines called Quiantes. Maybe you meant Chianti? ;) I meant exactly what I said! I am insane after all. :)
Japangirl 05-14-07, 11:34 PM	I meant exactly what I said! I am insane after all. :) Oh right.
bitznarf 05-15-07, 12:07 AM	its a game mechanics issue, the same way it is for and elf with favored enemy human to be sitting at a table with 5 humans... This is the assumption that annoys me. So he is better at killing/hunting/finding humans than he is other races. Maybe that is because there are so many evil humans out there to kill that he has gotten good at it. Doesn't change the fact that there are lots of good humans too. After all, there are a lot of humans. Or maybe this elf does actually hate all humans. Its the 'Favoured Enemy = hates all' assumption that I am griping about here.
Timlagor 05-15-07, 08:53 AM	Quiante? I didn't know there were wines called Quiantes. Maybe you meant Chianti? ;) Quite wrong I'm afraid. Allow me to rectify your ignorance. The Quiante is a small tentacled aberration usually served pickled and much coveted by the Duergar of Grnthil Hold who insist that it has a delightful citrous flavour and an aphrodisiac effect. (There is some speculation that an infamous gnome may be responsible for this bizarre behaviour)
Timlagor 05-15-07, 09:00 AM	Don't get me wrong, I realize that level dipping in classes/PrC's can be abused by power gamers just looking to give themselves an extra edge, I'm a 28-Intelligence Wizard who routinely risks his life in the pursuit of knowledge and excitement (and wealth and even occasionally just doing the right thing). Why would I not seek out every possible edge that I can find and exploit it to the utmost of my considerable abilities? I didn't join the Academy to share my knowledge! I joined to get access to their Secret Library so I was seriously unamused to find that it didn't contain any of the tomes (item access) I was assured it did when I signed up. "Goodies" can be a character incentive too! [My Cleric has a totally different attitude]
JamesMaissen 05-15-07, 10:33 AM	Don't get me wrong, I realize that level dipping in classes/PrC's can be abused by power gamers just looking to give themselves an extra edge I think people have a tendency to mistake game mechanics and in-game roleplay. A character that is mechanically a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian is no less (or more) 'pure' than a character that mechanically only has levels in one class. Meanwhile in the game neither wears a sign on their necks distinguishing one from the other. In 1st and 2nd edition multiclassing was done very differently than in 3rd edition. Back then it really was having separate classes, while now it is better described as creating your own class. Towards Occult Slayers themselves, they are not alone in having flavor text for their class. They suffer not from that text, but rather, imho, that they are 'too common'. No one reads the text from say the wizard or the fighter class and tries to say that they are misplaying their character by not following those stereotypes. The flavor text (imho) is to give a sense of the typical member of the class. It gives how other NPCs might view and expect them to be. It gives the stereotype and nothing more. Such flavor text typically includes how people tend to enter into the class. I've not seen that bit used yet as a possible mechanical requirement. This same phenomenon occured with the Templar (later Pious Templar) when it was over-popular. Gamers tend to abhor things that 'everyone does', and many times allow it to color their perceptions of things. -James
Mattastrophic 05-15-07, 12:39 PM	I've only skimmed through the rest of this thread, but it looks like it comes down to something like this: Do not attempt to legislate roleplaying! It's up to every one of us to decide how to roleplay our characters, so don't get on us for taking four classes or level dipping or being Occult Slayers with Unicorn companions. It's our right. -Matt
katrick 05-15-07, 02:12 PM	it's flavour TEXT use poetic license and run with it. My Pathwarden, he's a hill dwarf, so not likely to go into the deep, has no qualms about what class he is and anyone who says he shouldn't get deepwarden abilities is being precociuosly semantic. I mean why not the Oh-cultists slayer?? Int 6, he kills any cultists he finds. Or the Fattee spinner?? Radial Merchant of Pelor?? fixes holy wagon wheels. Owner of the Bow Initiate?? has a lot of silly ties Dwarven Deafener?? sings a bit too loud katrick
Mommy was an Orc 05-15-07, 02:47 PM	Towards Occult Slayers themselves, they are not alone in having flavor text for their class. They suffer not from that text, but rather, imho, that they are 'too common'. No one reads the text from say the wizard or the fighter class and tries to say that they are misplaying their character by not following those stereotypes. Or it could be that they've got actual rules text....Weapon Bond actually does say it is powered by hatred of spellcasters in the rules text section.
King Kashue 05-15-07, 03:42 PM	Or it could be that they've got actual rules text....Weapon Bond actually does say it is powered by hatred of spellcasters in the rules text section. And "hatred of spellcasters" does not equate to "can't associate with spellcasters"... Hell, James Carville married a Republican...;)
Mommy was an Orc 05-15-07, 04:02 PM	And "hatred of spellcasters" does not equate to "can't associate with spellcasters"... Didn't say it meant that at all - just means that if you don't actually hate spellcasters(and are actively showing that you don't hate them), then there is a rules-based issue for the character.
King Kashue 05-15-07, 04:18 PM	Didn't say it meant that at all Didn't say you did...Just relating the rules issue back to the main issue...
ragecage79 05-15-07, 05:56 PM	I've only skimmed through the rest of this thread, but it looks like it comes down to something like this: Do not attempt to legislate roleplaying! It's up to every one of us to decide how to roleplay our characters, so don't get on us for taking four classes or level dipping or being Occult Slayers with Unicorn companions. It's our right. -Matt Very true. It is also our right to consider it perhaps legal but definately munchkin-y! ;)