Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lord Karsus 12-30-07, 10:45 AM	-I have a played, who in the past, made it known that he was going to become a Shadowdancer as soon as he met the requirements, as an offhand comment. -In my mind, the Shadowdancer is inherently magical in nature. I mean, he/she is able to move through shadows, create illusions, see in the darkness, etc. A normal person wouldn't be able to do that. -I'm going to require this PC to undergo "Shadowdancer training". I have already introduced a NPC that is a Shadowdancer, and loosely works with the PCs, as they belong to the same secret soceity, and run into each other every so often. Even though the requirements for Shadowdancer don't say anything about training, in my mind, there needs to be some kind of training to justify being able to perform some of these supernatural feats. -When given the opportunity to join said secret organization, 3 out of 4 characters agreed to. The one character who didn't was the character who wants to become a Shadowdancer. When they were being recruited, I made sure the recruiter alluded to being able to teach the PCs all kinds of magical and martial techniques and lore. I'm going to also include the Shadowdancer NPC in a future scenario, and have him comment that he sense the PC "covets his power", and that he can train the PC. -Now, if the PC does not accept, that's two offers he's turned down- one blatent, one not so blatent. If he makes it to the level he needs to be able to become a Shadowdancer, I am going to deny him (at least, until he can get training). Am I justified, do you think, or am I being a :censored:? -I haven't talked to him out-of-character, since I abhor that. I don't like doing that kind of stuff. I, personally, think it cheapens the game.
unundindur 12-30-07, 10:53 AM	A very typical question, of which I think the answer is no. On the other hand, you can bar the player form taking levels in shadowdancer, you should allow him to delay leveling, thus gaining no experience untill A: He somehow obtain training as a shadowdancer og B: He chose to progress in something that doesn't require such specialised training. Are there any in-character reasons why he didn't wnat to join? And is this character a spellcaster himself?
Cartigan 12-30-07, 10:59 AM	Being the DM, you are allowed to make stuff up as you like, but I still say you are being a dick by introducing pre-requisites for a PrC that are not there. -In my mind, the Shadowdancer is inherently magical in nature. I mean, he/she is able to move through shadows, create illusions, see in the darkness, etc. A normal person wouldn't be able to do that. D&D is not a group of normal people wondering around doing normal thing. Normal people meet for lunch, go to the store and buy milk, and run away from the zombie invasion. PCs go get drunk in the tavern, buy a magical weapon twice the size of a normal person and double the cost of that person's shack, and charge into the undead horde. Hell, a normal person wouldn't be able to do most of the stuff non-PrCs do. Bards control peoples' minds with music and cast spells. Wizards and Sorcerers cast spells and converse with magical creatures. Barbarians fly into a rage and wield huge axes. A Monk's body is a lethal weapon. Druids walk around with animals and turn into them. Fighters have all sorts of combat abilities. Rogues can sneak around and stab you to death after unlocking and squeezing through a great the size of their head. Paladins and Clerics can turn evil, cast spells, and Paladins can summon a magical beast from another dimension. Rangers specialize in killing things, can cast spells, and get an animal companion as well as specializations in weapons.
Lord Karsus 12-30-07, 11:25 AM	Are there any in-character reasons why he didn't wnat to join? -Not that I can think of. The character is a CG Rogue/Fighter Half-Orc, with not very much backstory, due to the player's infertile imagination (He has a history of it, it's not just my bias). The PCs were introduced to a 'recruiter' of the secret organization, which promotes and facilitates good triumphing over evil through secrecy and 'covert operations' (very Harper-like, if you are familiar with the Harpers from the Forgotten Realms). All of the PCs joined, except for him. When he declined, he did not give a reason, and in hindsight, I should have asked. And is this character a spellcaster himself? -No. He is a multiclass Figher/Rogue. D&D is not a group of normal people wondering around doing normal thing. -A bad choice of words: a normal person, meaning a person who can not perform magical feats, either inherently, or due to his/her class. The point was, being mildly proficient at being able to hide in the shadows and sneak attack people does not, in my mind, give one the ability to literally create Shadow Illusions, and travel via shadows.
The_Shaman 12-30-07, 11:33 AM	Well, I think that it depends on how you view the prerequisites for the PrC. I guess the issue here is whether the prerequisites are a form of basic training the character should meet before they can begin to learn the real techniques that make the PrC, or meeting the prerequisites represents the necessary training and means the PC is already free to learn those abilities on his own. In the latter case, his training in agility and stealth is already all he needs to begin walking the path of the shadowdancer. In the former, he needs a mentor. I'm leaning towards the second, because the first would imply that the PCs need extra training to level up in any class, base or prestige. Shadowdancer is a bit trickier as, as you said, some of its skills are rather supernatural and it doesn't require any magical power - yet perhaps somewhere in those required ranks in hide and move silently there is already something special. Plus, it may be a little weird if you extend such special prerequisites to other PrCs. The archmage, for example - I doubt there's an organization training these, rather I think it's a matter of personal specialization once a mage reaches such skill. YMMV. Edit: if you would still prefer to have the PrC basics taught by an NPC, you might want to take a look at the special prerequisites from Unearthed Arcana here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/testBasedPrerequisites.htm#prestigeClass Tests). Maybe even if there is no NPC who could teach him, it would be a test that he himself devises to train himself and be sure of the abilities he intends to use. After all, sometimes the most important part of being able to do something is believing that you're able to do it. Just keep in mind that these are variant rules.
Euclid 12-30-07, 11:35 AM	I'd say it's fine. Becoming a wizard without any training, or at least for levels 3-10, doesn't exactly make sense. This is much the same.
kalyb 12-30-07, 11:39 AM	I think that adding training as a prereq for any PrC is fine. It makes sense to me to require it, although I usually don't unless the PrC specifically mentions it. So, no, you're not being a dick for that. However, if you are not letting him know ahead of time that it is a prereq, then you are being a :censored:. If the player knows that he needs training ahead of time, then he can seek out the training while getting the other prereqs. Otherwise, he spends his time gaining his prereqs, and when he's ready to start taking levels in Shadowdancer, he's told, "No, there's another prereq that I added." Not really fair to him.
MindWorX 12-30-07, 11:45 AM	I don't think you're being an Ass, but i think you're doing something wrong, you don't mention if you've made it clear that you changed how the class is attained, compared to other classes, and as the book says, if you add houserules you have to make it clear to the players, or else they have no chance to adapt to the game they're playing. You don't have to tell him offgame if you don't want that, but when they were talking to the person that asked if they wanted to join, you could make the NPC tell the PC's that they need this training if they ever want to become a Shadowdancer. But if you did make it clear that you changed how the class is attained, then you're not at fault. EDIT: Damn, kalyb beat me to it.
Man in the Funny Hat 12-30-07, 11:49 AM	If you wanted to add prerequisites to the prc such as "requires training" it should have been done as soon as it was understood by the players that it was available as a prc. Adding it after the fact rather suggests you need to be accomodating to the player. Let him/her BECOME a shadowdancer without training but make it clear that advancement beyond mere introduction of 1 level will require it.
navar100 12-30-07, 12:05 PM	Does the prestige class entering the game break the game to unplayability? No. If this particular character were to go into the prestige class, would he be so uberoverlord over everything the game is unplayable? No. Is the setting of the gameworld in such a state that the existance of this prestige class doesn't make sense in terms of believability of the gameworld? No. However, because you have a problem with the flavor text with the prestige class in question, you punish the player for wanting it. (Define punish as extra requirements and must follow a specific path he doesn't know to follow)No, being able to hide in shadows and sneak attack does not make one able to create shadow illusions. Rogues don't get spells. A rogue could multiclass a few levels in wizard or sorcerer and create shadow illusions that way. However, the prestige class itself is another way to have someone who hides in shadows and sneak attacks to create shadow illusions. Of course the character doesn't know how to do it before entering the prestige class. That's the whole point. Yes, yes, the DM doesn't have to allow any prestige class. The DM does have to maintain integrity of the campaign, etc., hence my first three rhetorical questions. However, the player is entitled to his fun. We don't know why the player refused to join this organization. Hopefully it's not because he secretly wants to play evil or close to it. I allow the possibility he has a "wrongness" here, but for sake of argument let's give him the benefit of the doubt. The player does not know this was how you were going to let him become a Shadowdancer because you don't want to metagame it. Therefore, for whatever reason, the player does not have his character follow the bread crumbs you set for him so you want to punish him. However, you got an out. You have already introduced a Shadowdancer to the character. Work with that. Metagame it if you have to. You already metagamed because you didn't like flavor text.
DarkRhystar 12-30-07, 12:16 PM	Am I justified, do you think, or am I being a :censored:? Well, since no one else is going to say it. I think you're being a :censored:. (edited by WizO_Chaos) He mentioned out of character what he wanted to do with his character later. You decided to modify the rules without telling anyone by adding training. You decided to shove this NPC group down his throat. You decided that if he doesn't like it then he can't take levels in the class he really wants later. In essence it comes down to "You're not doing what I want you to do and fulfilling requirements I never told you about, so you can't have your prestige class." Well done. I like players to be as open and honest about what they'd like to do with their characters down the road so that I, as a DM, can help them get there, make it entertaining, and just generally have a lot of fun. In your group I see it's not a good idea to talk about that stuff. It'll bite you in the rear apparently. That's the way I understood your OP anyway.
Cartigan 12-30-07, 12:32 PM	]-A bad choice of words: a normal person, meaning a person who can not perform magical feats, either inherently, or due to his/her class. The point was, being mildly proficient at being able to hide in the shadows and sneak attack people does not, in my mind, give one the ability to literally create Shadow Illusions, and travel via shadows. Anyone can take feats to perform magical feats. The Half-Orcs themselves have the magical ability to see in pitch black. The Orc related Sharakim from RoD are already shadow adept. Your argument is completely and entirely arbitrary, which as DM you are allowed to be but doesn't change the fact. Do you prevent Monks, a martial class, from eventually being able to take their later Supernatural abilities without explicit training? And everyone else is right, if you are arbitrarily changing the requirements for a class and refusing to tell the player who wants to take the class about the change, you are unquestionably being a :censored:.
wizarddog 12-30-07, 12:53 PM	I think the problem may be he has no intention of becoming part of an organization and become beholden to them. That basically what is happening and I would resist as well. Allow him to become a shadow dancer. The powers manifest inside him. As such he is recognized by the Shadowmaster organization but he can choose to follow them or to be outside of it. As far as the Organization is concerned he is part of them and will use him as a reluctant agent as needed. It makes for good stories. :cool:
MrCustomer 12-30-07, 01:22 PM	Yes and no. Yes, the requirement for training for any class, not just some specialty class, should be there. Wizards need labratories and libraries to research new spells. Fighters need training in new feats, Bards need piano lessons, etc. it's the same for any class, mystic or otherwise to need training. The thing is, are you being consistant. That is, he is a fighter/rogue and has he thus far needed to train for those classes? You don't become a blackbelt martial artist by thinking up a new move, a fighter doesn't learn Great Cleave or weapon specialization without being trained either. A Rogue isn't going to learn how to pick a complex lock without learning to understand how the lock works. If you are suddenly springing a requirment for training on the player, then you aren't really being fair. You may still be justified, considering that you are making that training readily available, but you should tell the player about your requirement. Just as the book says you need X Skill to qualify, you have to say you need X training to Qualify. Tell the player that he will need training to become a Shadowdancer, and that you have made it available to him.
danielinthewolvesden 12-30-07, 01:25 PM	Being the DM, you are allowed to make stuff up as you like, but I still say you are being a dick by introducing pre-requisites for a PrC that are not there. . Correct. Do you make everyone train to gain a level in any class with supernatural ablities?:confused:
kelcimer 12-30-07, 01:50 PM	I am going to side with the DM in this case. Whether or not a particular prestige class needs training is something that's different from PrC to PrC. As it happens I was faced with the same situation of a player wanting to gain Shadowdancer levels five years ago. As a shadow dancer does not have a central idea that a person could focus on and hit without guidance I ruled he would have to recieve special training. I did make clear from the get go that he would need that special training, and I think Lord Karsus should have done that. However, Lord Karsus, gave him two opportunities to line himself up with training. Any good player will make life easier for himself and for his DM by providing in-character explainations for the game mechanics. Easier for the DM, because it means one more thing the DM doesn't have to pay particular attention to. Easier for the player because he would be able to point out such things to the DM as to why he should get it. And if the player isn't interested in his chacater enough to do that then why, exactly, should the DM make it any easier on him? Is the DM supposed to hand hold the player though roleplaying his character? No. So no, Lord Karsus is not being an ass or a dick. He's justified. That said I still think it would be a good idea to give the player a heads up, before he levels up and finds he can't go right into shadow dancer.
Cartigan 12-30-07, 02:15 PM	However, Lord Karsus, gave him two opportunities to line himself up with training. Without telling him that training would be required to take the class. Any good player will make life easier for himself and for his DM by providing in-character explainations for the game mechanics. Fiat and fallacy. "Any true Scotsman.." fallacy. Any good player will do whatever the player thinks is best to do, not what the DM thinks is best without being told. Easier for the DM, because it means one more thing the DM doesn't have to pay particular attention to. He's the DM, it's his/her job to keep up with and inform people of what they are required to do in the game. Easier for the player because he would be able to point out such things to the DM as to why he should get it. Easier for the player because he was able to read the DM's mind? I'm sure that yes, that would make things easier for everyone. Is the DM supposed to hand hold the player though roleplaying his character? No. Is the DM supposed to tell the players about rules he made up on the fly that overrules the RAW? Yes. So no, Lord Karsus is not being an ass or a dick. He's justified. No, he's being a dick for making up new rules on the fly and expecting his players to follow those rules without telling his players about them. If and when it gets to the point where the guy wants to take Shadowdancer and the DM is like "nope, you didn't follow this rule you didn't know about," you can expect a shouting match to ensue. One that will have been the DM's fault.
Illithid Tentacles 12-30-07, 02:39 PM	In essence it comes down to "You're not doing what I want you to do and fulfilling requirements I never told you about, so you can't have your prestige class." Said much better than I could have done.
xanadu 12-30-07, 03:15 PM	":censored:" is rather mean :P You are not being fair in having expectations and not properly communicating them to your player.
Subversive 12-30-07, 03:17 PM	Are you being a :censored: for requiring him to get training for the class? No. Are you wrong for not telling him explicitly what is expected? Pretty much. Are you wrong for providing only one path for getting his levels of Shadowdancer through one specific organization? I'd say so, kind of.
Max Octavious Xavier 12-30-07, 03:17 PM	Do you make training a requirement for all other PRCs? Have you told the players "you will be required to find a teacher to take a level in a PRC"? The basic idea of requiring training is ok, but your implementation needs work. Tell the player NOW that his character will need to find a teacher. Do not surprise him with it.
Dragonsblood 12-30-07, 05:06 PM	I think that you should tell him out of character that in order to enter certain PrCs his PC has to undergo training and has to role play this out. Communication doesn't cheapen a game. You shouldn't expect him to read your mind.
robertliguori 12-30-07, 05:45 PM	If training is required to enter Shadowdancer, how did the first Shadowdancer discover the class? Got an answer? Great. The PC does that when he levels. Your problem is that you need justification. Make it up, in a non-interfering manner. Heck, start now; describe the player's intuitive connection to the nature of shadowstuff when he makes hide checks, and give him disorienting moments in which he can see impossibly fine details in the shadows of various creatures. If you want to be really clever, have the other shadowdancer stuffily insist that training is necessary right after the PC takes his first level in the class. This is D&D. Hiding in dark places and stabbing people in the place is as valid a route to magical power as studying ancient tomes, bumming it off of gods, or simply taking a sorcerer level and awakening your latent arcane potential.
Malchius 12-30-07, 05:52 PM	One important question, what if his character was a Bard or Beguiler, would you reguiqre him to get training? The justification for needing training's a bit off and not fair on his character. By the Way how does his character feel about this NPC, he might not like the NPC and you may have presented the NPC arrogantly, eg "I'm a master shadowdancer and I can teach you to be half as good as me", that's over exaggerated if you couldn't tell. He may not want training off him because he feels useless.
Cartigan 12-30-07, 05:58 PM	Partially on topic, why is the Hide in Plaint Sight abilities of the Assassin and Shadowdancer a Su ability while it is Ex for the Ranger?
OneWinged4ngel 12-30-07, 06:23 PM	-I have a played, who in the past, made it known that he was going to become a Shadowdancer as soon as he met the requirements, as an offhand comment. -In my mind, the Shadowdancer is inherently magical in nature. I mean, he/she is able to move through shadows, create illusions, see in the darkness, etc. A normal person wouldn't be able to do that. -I'm going to require this PC to undergo "Shadowdancer training". I have already introduced a NPC that is a Shadowdancer, and loosely works with the PCs, as they belong to the same secret soceity, and run into each other every so often. Even though the requirements for Shadowdancer don't say anything about training, in my mind, there needs to be some kind of training to justify being able to perform some of these supernatural feats. -When given the opportunity to join said secret organization, 3 out of 4 characters agreed to. The one character who didn't was the character who wants to become a Shadowdancer. When they were being recruited, I made sure the recruiter alluded to being able to teach the PCs all kinds of magical and martial techniques and lore. I'm going to also include the Shadowdancer NPC in a future scenario, and have him comment that he sense the PC "covets his power", and that he can train the PC. -Now, if the PC does not accept, that's two offers he's turned down- one blatent, one not so blatent. If he makes it to the level he needs to be able to become a Shadowdancer, I am going to deny him (at least, until he can get training). Am I justified, do you think, or am I being a :censored:? -I haven't talked to him out-of-character, since I abhor that. I don't like doing that kind of stuff. I, personally, think it cheapens the game. To answer your question: Yes, you are being an :censored: , for one very simple reason that is very easily rectified: You are adding a prerequisite (clearly an OOC element) without informing the player OOC, and thus preventing him from creating the character he wants to play for reasons not given to him *until its too late,* adding insult to injury. If you're going to add a prerequisite, you tell the damn player just as much as you would tell him you need a +X BAB or X ranks in a skill. You don't say "Surprise! I decided you need 10 ranks in Use Rope and Spring Attack, so you can't qualify even though you built your entire character up to this point to do so. Screw you! It would have cheapened the experience if I told you that you needed 10 ranks in Use Rope and Spring Attack and made no indication that the rules were any different from what was explicitly laid out in the book!" What part of that doesn't sound like an ass speaking? I'm all for heavy immersion, and I don't allow much OOC talk during my games except when necessary (to clarify a rules issue or something), but this nonsense about talking to a player about an OOC aspect of the game OOC is, quite frankly, complete nonsense. What are you going to do? Discuss the OOC aspects of the game IC? That obviously cheapens the game (ever hear the term "metagaming?"). What about not discuss OOC aspects at all? Well, that would require you to not use any books, since that counts as communication of OOC aspects of the game, and you're not doing that. You're having him read the Shadowdancer entry, see the requirements, and think that if he meets those requirements he will get into the class. Those are the ideas that were communicated by the book, and you're telling us that you said nothing to contradict that, yet are expecting something else of him anyways. The thing is, you're not taking a stand against something that cheapens the game, but instead just creating an illogical double standard that the players will suffer for. A REASONABLE DM would hear the player's desire to play a Shadowdancer, then say "Alright, I will allow the class, but you must have an explanation for how you acquired those powers before you get into the class, and I must find that explanation acceptable." In your case, they might say "I will provide opportunities for you to learn the abilities of this class to fulfill this RP requirement, and it's up to you to act on those opportunities." How does saying that simple phrase cheapen the experience in any way? Your reasoning for that just doesn't add up. An UNREASONABLE and just plain jerk of a DM, by contrast, would wait until you're at the level you qualify for the class, then say "Surprise! I just decided that you need to have training from this specific character here and you don't have a chance to qualify now! Your build is screwed and there's no turning back and you wasted your level! Hahaha!" I can't work out in my mind a way to picture that person as anything other than a complete :censored:. In fact, if that player were me, I would probably just get up and leave the person's game right there, appalled. The bottom line is, surprising players with requirements is DEFINITELY being a complete :censored: . Don't do it. Are you being an :censored: for requiring him to get training for the class? No. Are you being an :censored: for misleading him about the prerequisites of a PrC and springing it on him when he thinks he qualifies? Abso-freakin'-lutely. you're being a :censored:. It's an understatement. You should use a bigger font. Any good player will make life easier for himself and for his DM by providing in-character explainations for the game mechanics. This is obviously true. However, that does absolutely nothing to justify the DM being a complete jerk and springing surprise requirements on him when it's too late to make a difference, not to mention shoving an NPC and organization down his throat that he has to accept and work with (he doesn't know that, though, due to the DM's deception) or else not be able to fulfill his character concept. There simply is no excuse for that sort of deception.
DarkRhystar 12-30-07, 06:47 PM	Partially on topic, why is the Hide in Plaint Sight abilities of the Assassin and Shadowdancer a Su ability while it is Ex for the Ranger? Read the abilities. The Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight ability is different than that of the Assassin and Shadow Dancer.
Tequila_Sunrise 12-30-07, 06:50 PM	-I haven't talked to him out-of-character, since I abhor that. I don't like doing that kind of stuff. I, personally, think it cheapens the game. This is the one and only reason you are being an ass in this particular situation. The DMG states that all PrCs are assumed to be skill sets attainable only by membership in specific game world organizations, so it is not unreasonable to require your player to apprentice himself to some shadowdancer to gain his first shadowdancer level. Unfortunately a lot of players, as you can tell by many previous posts, have decided to ignore the DMG's implications about PrCs in general and to just assume that PrCs are just base classes that don't incur multiclassing penalties, and that any character should be able to freely gain prestige class levels without thought of in-game consistency. I'd bet my core books that your player is under this assumption, so I recommend that you make your in-game requirements perfectly clear to him. Even if you think it cheapens the game, you will look like and be an ass if he fulfills all the mechanical prerequisites just to be told by you "sorry, I dropped hints but you didn't catch them..."
masterlinktm 12-30-07, 06:53 PM	I do not think you are being an ass but you are being unfair. You should tell him OoC because you have added it while the book has not required it. However, it does make sense that he would need a trainer. You would need to be consistent though. Not just the PrC classes would need a trainer. In my option, all classes beyond the starting class a person picks would need a trainer or you would need to create a longer time lapse to represent the time spent train oneself for the class. One does not go from say Monk to a fighter just because he/she picked up a sword and attacked with it. If you look on page 109 in the PHB you will notice starting ages for different races and classes. The starting ages are there because they represent the time it took the character to master the basics of the class. Experience points are not there just to be another number to be looked at. It represents training the character has gone through in that class. That is why (somewhere in the PHB or DMG can't remember where) the book says you need to announce that you are going to multi-class before you level up. So the experience points represent the train in trying to obtain the new class. ....yes, I just realized what I have said but I am not going to retype this whole thing. Plus it could be a good way to make people see the logic behind the requirements and the need to notify. :D have fun ^_^
Cartigan 12-30-07, 07:09 PM	Read the abilities. The Ranger's Hide in Plain Sight ability is different than that of the Assassin and Shadow Dancer. But not any less supernatural. "I can literally disappear while standing next to a tree while you are starting at me." is Extraordinary but "I can disappear into the shadow of a tree while you are staring at me." is Supernatural?
Cartigan 12-30-07, 07:12 PM	The DMG states that all PrCs are assumed to be skill sets attainable only by membership in specific game world organizations, so it is not unreasonable to require your player to apprentice himself to some shadowdancer to gain his first shadowdancer level. Unfortunately a lot of players, as you can tell by many previous posts, have decided to ignore the DMG's implications about PrCs in general and to just assume that PrCs are just base classes that don't incur multiclassing penalties, and that any character should be able to freely gain prestige class levels without thought of in-game consistency. Please quote the page in the DMG that says these things because the Prestige Class intro text says nothing of the sort.
DarkRhystar 12-30-07, 07:12 PM	But not any less supernatural. "I can literally disappear while standing next to a tree while you are starting at me." is Extraordinary but "I can disappear into the shadow of a tree while you are staring at me." is Supernatural? Yes. In one you're jumping into a shadow and in another you're stepping behind a tree. Pretty stark difference IMHO.
Cartigan 12-30-07, 07:14 PM	Yes. In one you're jumping into a shadow and in another you're stepping behind a tree. Pretty stark difference IMHO. You are not stepping behind a tree. You are hiding in plain sight. You are stepping backward, pressing your back to a tree, and going away. Hell, Camouflage by itself lets you do that as long as no one is looking at you. Hide in Plain Sight lets you do that while some one is looking at you. Stepping behind a tree is normal hiding, the tree grants you concealment.
Mock26 12-30-07, 07:27 PM	Given that most classes require training before they start their careers and given that the DMG even states that characters have to train between sessions (and that the DM can punish characters who don't train) I don't see anything wrong with requiring a character to train to become a shadowdancer. Just remember, though, that it is implied that said training is not to be done in character. In regards to this one player, if he doesn't get the hint, then he doesn't and it is his loss. One thing that you might do is to have him witness some youngsters about to undergo the training, and tell something along the lines of, "Off to the side you hear one young girl practically squeel with delight as she says, "Wow! Today you're actually going to start training me to be a shadowdancer!" I'm so excited!"
kelcimer 12-30-07, 07:37 PM	Are you wrong for providing only one path for getting his levels of Shadowdancer through one specific organization? I'd say so, kind of. It's a Prestige Class. You shouldn't be able to get them on every street corner. robertliguori If training is required to enter Shadowdancer, how did the first Shadowdancer discover the class? I would say the first Shadow Dancer spent YEARS of not decades refining certain techniques though assorted means and only when he passed them on did it get condensed into Shadowdancer levels. I doubt the player in question has those years up his sleeve to do so. Cartigan Quote: Easier for the DM, because it means one more thing the DM doesn't have to pay particular attention to. He's the DM, it's his/her job to keep up with and inform people of what they are required to do in the game. That wasn't what I was talking about. A DM has a lot of stuff on his mind during game. It is not his responsibility to bring up every plot point that may require the PCs attention. The player should *GASP* inquire or weigh in on things relevent to his character. It is perfectly reasonable of the DM to say, "You can't take that class. Your character never even showed interest in being a shadow dancer."
DarkRhystar 12-30-07, 07:49 PM	You are not stepping behind a tree. You are hiding in plain sight. You are stepping backward, pressing your back to a tree, and going away. Hell, Camouflage by itself lets you do that as long as no one is looking at you. Hide in Plain Sight lets you do that while some one is looking at you. Stepping behind a tree is normal hiding, the tree grants you concealment. I think you're adding flavor to the ability that's not there.
Mock26 12-30-07, 07:52 PM	You decided to modify the rules without telling anyone by adding training. The DMG says that training is required by the characters as they advance in level. The DMG also says that the DM can penalize characters (such as taking back XP) for characters that don't train. Sure, it is a bit vague on what exactly training entails, but the original poster did not change the rules. He is merely enforcing the rules as written. http://www.amazon.com/Miss-Manners-Basic-Training-Right/dp/B000MTEWIK/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199062497&sr=1-5
DarkRhystar 12-30-07, 08:00 PM	The DMG says that training is required by the characters as they advance in level. The DMG also says that the DM can penalize characters (such as taking back XP) for characters that don't train. Sure, it is a bit vague on what exactly training entails, but the original poster did not change the rules. He is merely enforcing the rules as written. No it doesn't and it's also not vague (it has a couple subsections devoted to it!). The DMG doesn't say that training is required. By default, you merely need enough experience to get to the next level to gain anything you like. What the DMG does say is that the DM can choose to add further requirements such as having encountered the skill/feat to be taken upon leveling up or training if desired (page 197). It's not a rule, it's a house rule. http://www.amazon.com/Miss-Manners-Basic-Training-Right/dp/B000MTEWIK/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199062497&sr=1-5 I hope that's not directed at me.
Mock26 12-30-07, 08:02 PM	Read the DMG. It clearly states that training is required by the characters. When I get home and have access to my DMG I'll even quote you the page. It is there, in the section on awarding XP.
BENEVOLENT_DM 12-30-07, 08:08 PM	-I have a played, who in the past, made it known that he was going to become a Shadowdancer as soon as he met the requirements, as an offhand comment. -In my mind, the Shadowdancer is inherently magical in nature. I mean, he/she is able to move through shadows, create illusions, see in the darkness, etc. A normal person wouldn't be able to do that. -I'm going to require this PC to undergo "Shadowdancer training". I have already introduced a NPC that is a Shadowdancer, and loosely works with the PCs, as they belong to the same secret soceity, and run into each other every so often. Even though the requirements for Shadowdancer don't say anything about training, in my mind, there needs to be some kind of training to justify being able to perform some of these supernatural feats. -When given the opportunity to join said secret organization, 3 out of 4 characters agreed to. The one character who didn't was the character who wants to become a Shadowdancer. When they were being recruited, I made sure the recruiter alluded to being able to teach the PCs all kinds of magical and martial techniques and lore. I'm going to also include the Shadowdancer NPC in a future scenario, and have him comment that he sense the PC "covets his power", and that he can train the PC. -Now, if the PC does not accept, that's two offers he's turned down- one blatent, one not so blatent. If he makes it to the level he needs to be able to become a Shadowdancer, I am going to deny him (at least, until he can get training). Am I justified, do you think, or am I being a dick? -I haven't talked to him out-of-character, since I abhor that. I don't like doing that kind of stuff. I, personally, think it cheapens the game. OOC cheapens the game. This is a little bit of a double standard. You introduced a secret organization that can train him in a Prestige class that he mentioned. The entire idea of a character build is meta gaming. How could some one in character want to be a shadow dancer unless he knew such abilities existed. He could not plan out the prerequisites in character could he. So if he is biulding a character OOC, he should know the rules OOC.
Mock26 12-30-07, 08:10 PM	My mistake. It is not listed in the DMG. It is listed on page 58 of the Player's Handbook (version 3.5). It clearly states, in the Rules As Written: Training and Practice: Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills. This work consolidates what they learn on adventures and keeps them in top form. If, for some reason, a character can't practice or train for an extended time, the DM may reduce XP awards or even cause the character to lose experience points.
DarkRhystar 12-30-07, 08:14 PM	Read the DMG. It clearly states that training is required by the characters. When I get home and have access to my DMG I'll even quote you the page. It is there, in the section on awarding XP. Let me quote you the relevant parts since you will not take my word for it: According to the rules in the Player's Handbook, characters pick up new skills and feats as they go up in levels. In your campaign, however, you can require that a character can't learn a new skill or feat that he hasn't been exposed to. <snip> One step further would be to require that a character have an instructor to teach him new skills and feats. Under this approach a character can't learn to swim unless he has access to a body of water and someone who can swim willing to train him. <snip> You don't have to treat skills and feats the same in this context. For example, you can require training or exposure for skills but not feats, ruling that feats are something that develop on their own as a character adventures. Or you can set requirements on feats but not skills, justifying this by the fact that feats are so much more potent than skills and thus require more investment on the PC's part to acquire. Clearly house rules and not rules by definition.
DarkRhystar 12-30-07, 08:15 PM	My mistake. It is not listed in the DMG. It is listed on page 58 of the Player's Handbook (version 3.5). It clearly states, in the Rules As Written: What you just quoted has no mechanical impact on gaining levels or choosing prestige classes. Those are guidelines for handling downtime.
Mock26 12-30-07, 08:19 PM	What you just quoted has no mechanical impact on gaining levels. 100% flavor with no rules suggestions for requiring training (unlike the house rules posited in the DMG). It clearly states that characters train. It leaves the exact details on that up to the DM, but it clearly states that characters train, study, or practice their skills (and study and practice their skills is all a type of training). I'll even post it again in case someone missed it: Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills. It doesn't say that they may or may not do it. It states that they do it. Sure, requiring a character to train with a shadowdancer guide is purely Rule 0, but it is the case of the minor details being house rules. The training is still required, as per the Rules As Written.
DarkRhystar 12-30-07, 08:20 PM	One more excerpt which hits a little closer to the matter at hand: You can mandate that to gain any of the newfound class-based benefits earned by advancing a level, a character needs to perform some overall training. Still nothing here absolutely requiring training. It's suggested a few times that a DM can choose to do it in his/her campaign, but no where is it absolutely required.
Mock26 12-30-07, 08:23 PM	It's suggested a few times that a DM can choose to do it in his/her campaign, but no where is it absolutely required. Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills. Seems pretty clear to me.
Cartigan 12-30-07, 08:25 PM	That wasn't what I was talking about. A DM has a lot of stuff on his mind during game. It is not his responsibility to bring up every plot point that may require the PCs attention. The player should *GASP* inquire or weigh in on things relevent to his character. If I have to inquire if the DM has arbitrarily changed rules he expects us to follow, I will do one of two things. (1) Ignore his arbitrary changes and do whatever the hell I want out of spite or (2) not play under such a crappy DM. I think you're adding flavor to the ability that's not there. Are you kidding? Are you arguing that a tree does not provide required cover to hide? I am referencing mechanics of the game. Hide in Plain Sight specifically says you hide while being observed. Mechanically, a tree provides cover. Using a tree to hide by stepping behind it (a flavor comment, by the by) is using the standard method of hiding. That is the same reason you don't need a Camouflage ability for the Assassin or Shadowdancer to hide without being observed - shadows provide concealment necessary for hiding. Read the DMG. It clearly states that training is required by the characters. When I get home and have access to my DMG I'll even quote you the page. It is there, in the section on awarding XP. Good luck with that because it doesn't It doesn't say that they may or may not do it. It states that they do it. In their down time.
DarkRhystar 12-30-07, 08:26 PM	Seems pretty clear to me. Find me a quote that says in order to take a level of a class you must train for that class.
Mock26 12-30-07, 08:39 PM	Find me a quote that says in order to take a level of a class you must train for that class. Page 58 of the Player's Handbook. "Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills." Training is required, by the rules. The exact implementation of that training is left strictly up to the DM (and thus making them House Rules), but the rule that training is required is right there in the Player's Handbook.
DarkRhystar 12-30-07, 08:48 PM	Page 58 of the Player's Handbook. "Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills." Training is required, by the rules. The exact implementation of that training is left strictly up to the DM (and thus making them House Rules), but the rule that training is required is right there in the Player's Handbook. I'll say it again. Find me a quote that says in order to take a level of a class that you must train for that class. I'll keep repeating myself until you understand the difference between flavor, house rules, and rules.
Mock26 12-30-07, 09:01 PM	I'll say it again. Find me a quote that says in order to take a level of a class that you must train for that class. I'll keep repeating myself until you understand the difference between flavor, house rules, and rules. It doesn't have to say that you have to train for a specific class. But, it does clearly state that characters train between levels. As I said before, training is required, but the exact details for that training are left up to the DM. I'm curious, though, as to why you are getting your knickers all knotted up over something that has absolutely nothing to do with you? How does this one DM's interpretation of the rules and his invoking Rule 0 (which is, for all intents and purposes, a Rule As Written) affect you in any way, shape, or form? The truth of the matter is that it doesn't. Yet, for some reason you chose to call this particular DM a dick, just because he doesn't conform to your view of how the game is "supposed" to be played. I've got news for you. There is no one way nor a wrong way to play D&D. That is a something that you don't seem to understand.
Cold Napalm 12-30-07, 09:09 PM	I'll say it again. Find me a quote that says in order to take a level of a class that you must train for that class. I'll keep repeating myself until you understand the difference between flavor, house rules, and rules. Don't bother...mock is more stubborn then I am. I at least bother to read the rules. Oh and I vote for being an arse...mainly because he's pulling a house rule in mid game with no notification. You should have said oh this PrC has these things changed BEFORE they started making characters, not in the middle of the game. That just makes me spiteful personally.
Mock26 12-30-07, 09:17 PM	Don't bother...mock is more stubborn then I am. I at least bother to read the rules. Oh and I vote for being an arse...mainly because he's pulling a house rule in mid game with no notification. You should have said oh this PrC has these things changed BEFORE they started making characters, not in the middle of the game. That just makes me spiteful personally. I've read the rules. The point of the matter is that we interpret them differently. That's it. I actually used to think you were mature enough to see that difference. I guess I was wrong.
kelcimer 12-30-07, 09:55 PM	If I have to inquire if the DM has arbitrarily changed rules he expects us to follow, I will do one of two things. (1) Ignore his arbitrary changes and do whatever the hell I want out of spite or (2) not play under such a crappy DM. So. Say you wanted to be a Shadowdancer and told the DM this. Then shows up a shadowdancer in the game you're playing in and feel justified in not inquiring the NPC about being a Shadowdancer (an action BTW that would justify the characters knowledge of Shadowdancing). Further, when offered the opportunity to join this Shadowdancers secret organization and he offers training you also feel justified in turing it down. The DM has not mentioned one way or the other that whether you have to train or not, but he has put in the effort to insert Shadowdancers into the game and even have them offer you training. If I'm understanding you right in those circumstances you would feel justified in having your character turn away from all things shadowdancing. Is that correct?
OneWinged4ngel 12-30-07, 10:23 PM	The truth of the matter is that it doesn't. Yet, for some reason you chose to call this particular DM a dick It doesn't have to say that you have to train for a specific class. But, it does clearly state that characters train between levels. As I said before, training is required, but the exact details for that training are left up to the DM. I'm curious, though, as to why you are getting your knickers all knotted up over something that has absolutely nothing to do with you? How does this one DM's interpretation of the rules and his invoking Rule 0 (which is, for all intents and purposes, a Rule As Written) affect you in any way, shape, or form? The truth of the matter is that it doesn't. Yet, for some reason you chose to call this particular DM a dick, just because he doesn't conform to your view of how the game is "supposed" to be played. I've got news for you. There is no one way nor a wrong way to play D&D. That is a something that you don't seem to understand. I've read the rules. The point of the matter is that we interpret them differently. That's it. I actually used to think you were mature enough to see that difference. I guess I was wrong. Rather slow on the uptake, I see. 1) Cold Napalm does not appear to be making the literal claim that you have not read the rules, but rather inferring that you simply have not acquired a proper understanding of them. That of course doesn't stop you from making a petty and, ironically, immature little "I guess you're not mature enough to see the difference" quip at him." 2) You're wrong about what constitutes a rule. There is a clear difference between flavor text, RAW, and discussion about the nature and possibilities of gameplay (the third being something they cut back quite a bit on in 3rd edition, but it's still there). 3) The OP ASKED whether or not he was being a dick. And yet, you are criticizing Dark Rhystar for offering judgment when it was requested. It doesn't take a professor of ethics to see the folly in that personal attack. 4) Whether or not it's "the rules as written" or even "the rules as I interpret them" is entirely irrelevant to why most of the people saying that the guy's a total :censored: are saying that he's a total :censored:. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that your interpretation was correct (even though it's not. The entry you referenced includes flavor text and a mention of the potential of DM fiat, neither of which have ever been an issue of "RAW." Ever. When it says "DM may" that means "it's up to DM fiat." A "DM may" do ANYTHING. That's the infamous rule zero, and rule zero and its results never counts as "RAW." If it did, the term would be utterly without meaning of any sort, since that would mean that anything and everything was "RAW." Likewise, flavor text has nothing to do with rules at all). In this case, the :censored: of a DM is STILL doing the exact same thing. He knows a rule is run a certain way in his game, he realizes it will screw over the player hard if he doesn't know it, he knows that the player doesn't know the rule, and he opts not to inform him until it is too late, and the knowledge serves the sole purpose of adding insult to injury. Salt to the wound. Exact same dilemma, and exact same verdict. Quite plainly, it's the kind of thing that can ruin a game and end it outright for everyone involved. Further, if the issue is an interpretation (if we were to say that your interpretation was in any way valid) that might affect the players, then it is especially true that the DM should clarify the interpretation he is running with for his game. Springing a rule or rule interpretation on your players is ALWAYS bad, and every measure should be taken to avoid it. Doing it on PURPOSE, though, just makes you an :censored:. Basically, your argument doesn't change anything. It doesn't justify screwing over the player, ruining the player's fun, and being downright deceitful to the people who are supposed to be your friends. There are no more grounds to defend knowingly concealing critical knowledge of a rule interpretation than there is to conceal a houserule.
BENEVOLENT_DM 12-30-07, 10:38 PM	This thread is really has more depth to it than is being discussed. Different groups game very differently in this regard. There are those who build characters with out a player plan. They pick skills and feats as they level based on their character background,motivations, and in game experiences. There are groups that build there characters from level one to twenty before day one, so they can be optimized. There is of course a lot of variation in between. From the limited information we have hear, that the DM sees himself as being in the first camp, (although introducing a secret society of shadow dancers to fill his players desires does not fit the mold.) Again from the limited information, the player would be in group 2. These are basic ideas about how the group veiws the game, and it is the DMS job to make this clear to the group. From what we know the player is under the assumption that he will level up as a shadow dancer as soon as he has the prerequisites and enough xp for the next level. So what is more important. To "cheapen"the RP aspect of the game some, and let the player know OOC that he will need to be trained in game to level as a shadow dancer, or to spring it on him (he does seem dense from the post) and possibly damaging the game badly with a P.O.d player? Easy answer I.M.H.O
DarkRhystar 12-30-07, 11:00 PM	I think the last few posts in this thread have gotten a little out of hand. Let's all step back for a moment and relax. :) 3) The OP ASKED whether or not he was being a dick. And yet, you are criticizing Dark Rhystar for offering judgment when it was requested. It doesn't take a professor of ethics to see the folly in that personal attack. Pretty much. I don't actually in fact think the OP is a dick, an :censored:, or even a bad DM. I just used the language that he provided. I think he made a decision that he, himself, was uncomfortable with and came to this board for opinions on how he handled it. Some people have said it wasn't a bad decision and others like myself have said that it was. That said, the important part isn't dwelling on whether his choice was a bad one or not but what to do from here. Obviously the OP can "take it back" and decide that the PC can gain Shadowdancer levels later without affiliation with this group. The group representative even said that he saw potential in the PC (or something like that) so this choice wouldn't be hard to iron out. The OP could also run with the situation he has created either forcing the PC to join the organization or let the PC's decision to not join it stand. Doing the former means forcing the player's character to do something that he does not want it to do. It means railroading. I don't like that. The latter means the player's PC cannot access the prestige class he wants. This was a rule change mid-game (or appears to be such) which makes this very unfair to the player. I don't like that. To me, it seems that the OP either needs to "take it back" as suggested above or discuss alternatives with the player. As for the argument with Mock26. You can go out and try to dig up that proof I asked for (though I'm sure it doesn't exist). Or you can let it go and decide you're going to play the game the way you (and your group) enjoy it regardless of what the books or I say. Either way, not a big deal. Happy gaming.
Mock26 12-30-07, 11:03 PM	At least two people here failed their skill checks when they read the title of this thread.
Cartigan 12-30-07, 11:09 PM	Page 58 of the Player's Handbook. "Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills." Training is required, by the rules. The exact implementation of that training is left strictly up to the DM (and thus making them House Rules), but the rule that training is required is right there in the Player's Handbook. Let me help you out. "Characters spend time between adventures" They train in their downtime so that they don't forget their skills and abilities, it doesn't even have anything to do with leveling. Which it says: "This work consolidates what they learn on adventures and keeps them in top form." So. Say you wanted to be a Shadowdancer and told the DM this. Then shows up a shadowdancer in the game you're playing in So the NPC walked up an said "Hi, I'm a Shadowdancer"? Further, when offered the opportunity to join this Shadowdancers secret organization and he offers training you also feel justified in turing it down. Some one get him a conductor's hat because he is building a railroad. Your entire argument has been boiled down to your opinion of specific events that you know nothing about.
DarkRhystar 12-30-07, 11:10 PM	At least two people here failed their skill checks when they read the title of this thread. Wait! I think I just failed a Listen check! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html)
Mock26 12-30-07, 11:14 PM	Let's say, for the sake of argument, that your interpretation was correct (even though it's not. The entry you referenced includes flavor text and a mention of the potential of DM fiat, neither of which have ever been an issue of "RAW." Hm, since you're obviously slow in the reading department I'll try to clarify something for you. What I quoted does NOT say that characters may train. It says that they train. It does say that the DM may impose penalties. Rule 0 is not on whether or not characters train but is on whether or not the DM imposes penalties. If you read what it says on training and XP in the DMG it is pretty much the same thing. Rule 0 is not on whether or not the characters train, but is instead on how the DM chooses to handle that (meaning whether or not it happens behind the scenes or requires some DM-Player interaction). The DMG even suggests that the DM leave the details of the training And just because something contains flavor text doesn't automatically invalidate it as a rule. It may not be a standard rule along the lines of a fireball does Xd6 points of damage or 6 inches of rope has X hit points, but characters are required to train. The DM and the players decide on what exactly training entails (be it something detailed, something roleplayed, or something that is covered in a single sentence), but those characters still train. But, you seem to be slow on the uptake in regards to that, buddy.
Mock26 12-30-07, 11:15 PM	Wait! I think I just failed a Listen check! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html) The original poster asked if he was being the posterior of the human body, not if he was being a male reproductive organ.
DarkRhystar 12-30-07, 11:35 PM	The original poster asked if he was being the posterior of the human body, not if he was being a male reproductive organ. The title said one thing and the part I quoted said another. Reading comprehension FTW! :)
OneWinged4ngel 12-30-07, 11:46 PM	The original poster asked if he was being the posterior of the human body, not if he was being a male reproductive organ. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that in context, those words are synonyms, meaning that they can be used interchangeably, and that you are just being exceedingly petty. And trolling. Hm, since you're obviously slow in the reading department I'll try to clarify something for you. Says the man who just claimed I had an interpretation entirely NOT based on anything I ever actually posted. :rolleyes: What I quoted does NOT say that characters may train. You know, claiming that someone can't read and then debunking something that they never claimed doesn't make them look any worse. It just means you're using a straw man, and are even worse at reading comprehension. Nowhere did I claim that your quote said that a character may train. It does say that the DM may choose to take back XP. It says that they train. And I said that that was flavor text, which you promptly ignored, along with the fact that whether or not it was, in fact, "the rules" was completely irrelevant. Funny how that works. :rolleyes: And just because something contains flavor text doesn't automatically invalidate it as a rule. Did I say anything about it containing flavor text invalidating it as a rule? Nope, that's just another straw man (if you're a troll) or severe failure of reading comprehension (if you're just plain dim) on your part. The fact that it is flavor text, and not a rule, invalidates it as a rule. Your quote says that they train. It does not say that they must train to qualify for a level, now does it? Saying that they train is flavor text. Saying that they must train to qualify for a level is a rule. Your own quote is here: Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills. This work consolidates what they learn on adventures and keeps them in top form. Nowhere is there an indication that characters *must* do it, nor is there any mention of it as a requisite for gaining levels. Thus, it is flavor text. But, you seem to be slow on the uptake in regards to that, buddy. You call people immature, but then turn around and the best argument you can make is turning around and slinging an insult you received back at someone without justification. That's exactly what small children do. They say "Nuh-uh, you are!" It is in fact a paragon of immature behavior. That, sir, makes you a hypocrite. ;) You are slow on the uptake because you seem to still be arguing this point even though it is actually *irrelevant* to the subject. You have not demonstrated any greater a grasp on that point after it was quite bluntly explained to you, and instead have just turned around, argued against a bunch of points that no one ever said as if it was a response to me, and slung insults. And still stood by the point that ultimately would gain no ground for your argument even if it proved to be true. To reiterate in brief: even if it was a written rule, the reasoning for why the OP would be a jerk in this situation remains exactly the same. The fact that you ignored that, even when it was very clearly presented to you, and chose to continue wasting time on this topic, indicates that either one of two possibilities are true. 1) You are a troll. You are doing everything in your power to perpetuate a pointless topic, hoping for any response. 2) You are unable to comprehend basic concepts, such as the difference between a rule and flavor text, or even basic relevancy, even when they are clearly presented to you. You're still a troll, but you'd never realize that. The only real difference is whether or not it is purposeful. I think everyone (except perhaps you) has already come to one of these conclusions, so I guess this was rather unnecessary. *Shrug* The point is, people... take Cold Napalm's advice and don't bother.
danielinthewolvesden 12-31-07, 12:35 AM	The DMG says that training is required by the characters as they advance in level. The DMG also says that the DM can penalize characters (such as taking back XP) for characters that don't train. No, it does not. No, and it fact it suggests never penalizing anyone's XP. I am curious why the OP, despite the fact he has posted many times elsewhere since his 1st post here, has not been back.:confused: Karsus? Hello?
Lord Karsus 12-31-07, 12:59 AM	-I'm here. Just listening.
kelcimer 12-31-07, 01:08 AM	Some one get him a conductor's hat because he is building a railroad. The player wanted Shadowdancers and so the DM gave him Shadowdancers. Yeah, it sure is railroading when the DM is catering to the players. :rolleyes: Your entire argument has been boiled down to your opinion of specific events that you know nothing about. Mine are derived from what I can gleen from what Karsus has said. Same as yours. I'm assuming that I was correct and that you'd not follow up on those leads, presumably because you didn't have a choice of secret societies. :rolleyes:
NordicBirch 12-31-07, 07:58 AM	-In my mind, the Shadowdancer is inherently magical in nature. I mean, he/she is able to move through shadows, create illusions, see in the darkness, etc. A normal person wouldn't be able to do that. Just make sure that you and the players are using the same rules... Doesn't really matter whether you're changing the rules or just have a different intrerpretation, the end result will still be nasty if the players don't know about it. -I haven't talked to him out-of-character, since I abhor that. I don't like doing that kind of stuff. I, personally, think it cheapens the game. Yeah, here we see one of the most common reasons for botched games. If _you_ (meaning not some NPC IC) don't tell the player that he needs training and he's decided training isn't necessary then it can be perfectly reasonable for his char not to want the NPC's offer of help (a bit weird certainly but easily reasonable). If the player is in the belief that he can take the prc without training and you deny him when he tries, then you've changed the rules on him and that's not fair. In this case you've given hints that I think should have been obvious to him but still, IC stuff heard and inferred from NPC is not what players should be basing rules-knowledge on. You wouldn't be telling the player to accept the offered training, you'd just tell him how the rules work. If he dislikes the NPC (or something) he can then decide to seek training elsewhere. IMO you've handled the situation pretty well but there's no getting around the point that mechanical things should be talked out OC.
Cartigan 12-31-07, 11:30 AM	Hm, since you're obviously slow in the reading department I'll try to clarify something for you. What I quoted does NOT say that characters may train. It says that they train. During downtime, to keep in top form. It has NOTHING to do with leveling up. The XP penalties are entirely RP flavor - if you don't have time to train between adventures, you lose knowledge you gained. Since you are so keen on reading, I will post something for you to read from the same section. Advancing a Level: When your character’s XP total reaches at least the minimum XP needed for a new character level (see Table 3–2), he or she “goes up a level.” For example, when Tordek obtains 1,000 or more XP, he becomes a 2nd-level character. As soon as he accumulates a total of 3,000 XP or higher (2,000 more than he had when he gained 2nd level), he reaches 3rd level. Going up a level provides the character with several immediate benefits (see below). When you get enough XP, you level up and gain immediate benefits. No ifs, ands, or buts. Among the immediate benefits are 1. Choose Class: A typical character has only one class, and when he or she attains a new level, it is a new level in that class. If your character has more than one class or wants to acquire a new class, you choose which class goes up one level. The other class or classes stay at the previous level. (See Multiclass Characters, page 59.) You go up a level in a class you qualify for, no discussion. Mine are derived from what I can gleen from what Karsus has said. Same as yours. Wrong. None of the arguments I have made are based around assumptions about the players, where all of yours are. You are assuming that that player has no reasons for what he is doing and is metagaming because he isn't reading the DMs mind, and you are assuming the DM is being forthright (when there is plenty evidence to the contrary here).
weasel0 12-31-07, 11:53 AM	A tree you can step behind. A shadow you grab and move around you... seems abit different.
Cuindless 12-31-07, 11:57 AM	-I have a played, who in the past, made it known that he was going to become a Shadowdancer as soon as he met the requirements, as an offhand comment. -In my mind, the Shadowdancer is inherently magical in nature. I mean, he/she is able to move through shadows, create illusions, see in the darkness, etc. A normal person wouldn't be able to do that. -I'm going to require this PC to undergo "Shadowdancer training". I have already introduced a NPC that is a Shadowdancer, and loosely works with the PCs, as they belong to the same secret soceity, and run into each other every so often. Even though the requirements for Shadowdancer don't say anything about training, in my mind, there needs to be some kind of training to justify being able to perform some of these supernatural feats. -When given the opportunity to join said secret organization, 3 out of 4 characters agreed to. The one character who didn't was the character who wants to become a Shadowdancer. When they were being recruited, I made sure the recruiter alluded to being able to teach the PCs all kinds of magical and martial techniques and lore. I'm going to also include the Shadowdancer NPC in a future scenario, and have him comment that he sense the PC "covets his power", and that he can train the PC. -Now, if the PC does not accept, that's two offers he's turned down- one blatent, one not so blatent. If he makes it to the level he needs to be able to become a Shadowdancer, I am going to deny him (at least, until he can get training). Am I justified, do you think, or am I being a :censored:? -I haven't talked to him out-of-character, since I abhor that. I don't like doing that kind of stuff. I, personally, think it cheapens the game. I can understand not wanting to explain it OOC. As the DM you want to discourage metagame thinking and encourage the characters to use in-game logic. In fact, the DMG says as much on page 11 and 12 under "Metagame Thinking". Of course, that's flavor text and not a hard and fast rule, but it still applies to this situation. You want to discourage metagame thinking, and you think that the best way to do this is to keep OOC talk to a minimum. To your thinking, this character wants to be a Shadow Dancer and should, therefore, jump at the chance to be trained by one. That would be employing in-game logic, which is a valid desire. This line of thinking falls apart when you take into account that this is still a game with rules that need to be agreed upon. The player is acting with a certain assumption of game rules, i.e. that he can take a level in whatever he wants as soon as he has the prerequisites. His thinking is valid as well, because that seems to be what D&D encourages, in both fluff and crunch. He's probably not taking into account page 176 of the DMG which clearly says PrC's are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. There's a good reason he isn't taking that into account: He doesn't have to. He's the player, not the DM. His job is to look after his character. If, for instance, you were disallowing PrCs, would you tell the players before hand, "Oh, by the way, there's no prestige classes in my game..." In one game I ran I told the players not to take any PrCs for granted because I would be introducing tailor made ones into the game. This is because lines of communication are important, and sometimes it needs to be done OOC. Here's what I think: You aren't being an (insert vulgar word for human anatomical posterior here) because you aren't trying to be cruel. In my opinion, though, you're being a little unrealistic. Here's my suggestion, talk to the player OOC. This doesn't have to be around the table at a game session. Have him come over early (or if you don't meet at your house, talk to him wherever you two hang out) and say, "Listen, I wanted to talk to you about the game real quick." Iron out exactly what he has in mind for his character. If he's a Chaotic Neutral type who bucks authority and doesn't like being in an organization, he has perfectly good in-game logic for not jumping at this chance. Good luck.
kelcimer 12-31-07, 12:01 PM	Wrong. None of the arguments I have made are based around assumptions about the players, where all of yours are. You are assuming that that player has no reasons for what he is doing and is metagaming because he isn't reading the DMs mind, and you are assuming the DM is being forthright (when there is plenty evidence to the contrary here). If Lord Karsus isn't being forthright then any advice we give will be meaningless. I am proceeding from the assumption that he is bing forthright as that is in his best interests. If I were to assume that Lord Karsus is not being forthright then I must also assume that you are not being forthright. Nor have I accused this player of metagaming. I don't know what the thought prosess of this player is. In posing the hypothetical with you in the situation I did speculate at your motives based upon what you have said here on this thread. I did this to see if was understanding you clearly or not. Based upon the facts as presented by Lord Karsus I think he is barely in the right. If the player says he wants to play a certain PrC and if the DM then has an NPC offer said player training in said PrC, then the player is being at least mildly oblivious (or willfully stupid) and the DM has the right to bar him from leveling in that PrC. Regardless of the players motivations or cognative abilities, the DM has made an effort and the player chose not to pick it up. If he had not had a NPC offer training to the player I would be totally siding with the player, but this is not the case. As it is, I do think Lord Karsus should speak plainly to his player and let him know that he'll need to do stuff in character to warrent leveling as Shadowdancer. I don't have to assume anything about the player in question. I do speculate that the player is being mildly oblivious or willfully stupid, but his mental state and reasons would not change my conclusions.
annoyinglizardvoice 12-31-07, 01:20 PM	I think your being a :censored: for not telling the player as soon as he/she stated an interest in becoming a shadow dancer, but only for that. When I DM, I say that nearly all prestige classes require special training, conntacts and/or background. My players are usually aware of the from the outset, so it doesn't cause them any trouble and more often than not encourages them to roleplay rather than rollplay.
Cuindless 12-31-07, 01:27 PM	I think your being a :censored: for not telling the player as soon as he/she stated an interest in becoming a shadow dancer, but only for that. When I DM, I say that nearly all prestige classes require special training, conntacts and/or background. My players are usually aware of the from the outset, so it doesn't cause them any trouble and more often than not encourages them to roleplay rather than rollplay. I'd be a little careful about tossing around terms like "roleplay" and "rollplay". Some people find those terms insulting and arbitrary. I know I've gotten chewed out a number of times for making that comment, even innocently and, to my thinking, deservedly. What is and is not "roleplaying" can get almost as heated as rules arguments, though I've noticed it's less likely to devolve into ad hominem ad nauseum. Also, I don't see how requiring special training or contacts encourages roleplaying. It encourages PC to NPC interaction, but if the character in question is a misanthropic loner it would only discourage roleplaying. The player would be required to step out of character to learn from a person his character would never socialize with. That might encourage metagame thinking. With that in mind, I always find that tailor-made PrCs is the way to go.
Cartigan 12-31-07, 01:39 PM	A tree you can step behind. A shadow you grab and move around you... seems abit different. You can hide in a shadow if not being observed. Camouflage lets you hide on top of a pile of leaves if not being observed. Hide in Plain Sight in both cases lets you do those things while you are being observed, but one is Ex and the other is Su. Nonsense.
Tequila_Sunrise 12-31-07, 01:45 PM	-I'm here. Just listening. You haven't decided what to do yet? I'd be interested to know when you do. Please quote the page in the DMG that says these things because the Prestige Class intro text says nothing of the sort. Hm, I can't seem to find the passage now, maybe I'm remembering it from 3.0. That's what I get for posting at work without my books. ________________________________________ _____________________________________ In any case, I don't see why so many folks are getting uptight about having in game requirements to take a prestige class. For example page 59 phb: "The DM may restrict the choices available based on the way he or she handles classes, skills, experience and training. For instance, the character may need to find a tutor to teach him or her the ways of the new class." Mind, this is referring to base classes which are much less exclusive than prestige classes... Page 176 DMG: "Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign." So prestige classes are clearly meant to be treated more exclusively than base classes depending on in-game circumstances. As such it is perfectly reasonable to require a character to be trained by an NPC in order to get into a PrC. Now I'm not pretending that Lord Karsus should be using in-game requirements, I'm pointing out that doing so is not unreasonable given the game's default attitude towards classes in general.
Lord Karsus 12-31-07, 01:53 PM	-Well, first thing I do is take a pen, and add the training to the prerequisites in the book. I never bend my books, let along write in them, but I don't want to ever have to deal with something like this again.
Anguish2 12-31-07, 02:22 PM	-Well, first thing I do is take a pen, and add the training to the prerequisites in the book. I never bend my books, let along write in them, but I don't want to ever have to deal with something like this again. Honestly, I think you're to be admired because you're asking the question. Considering one's actions/plans is a sign of maturity. That being said, I think your direction is a poor one. Don't add rules to the game that reinforce your vision of "realistic". The only rules changes a DM should make increase the "fun" factor of the game. Ask yourself this one question: will my player appreciate this change? We house-ruled that the Dodge feat is a flat bonus... no picking targets, because the book-keeping is a pain in the butt. We house-ruled that the Warblade only gets a d10 hit die instead of d12, because (we feel) otherwise the class overshadows others. Sometimes house-rules are in players' favour. Sometimes not. This is one you're adding to fit your personal idea how how things should work. If the players don't want to go this route, don't make them. Some times in D&D things are abstracted away. That's a good thing. If the player had decided he wants to take a level in warlock, he wouldn't need training. Nor sorcerer. Heck, if he takes a level of druid, he suddenly gets druidic as a bonus language. It doesn't matter exactly HOW your player's character learns how to play with shadows. The moment he hits enough XP to pick a level, it's assumed the character has been experimenting in his "off time". Just let your player play the game. That's my advice.
Cold Napalm 12-31-07, 03:54 PM	-Well, first thing I do is take a pen, and add the training to the prerequisites in the book. I never bend my books, let along write in them, but I don't want to ever have to deal with something like this again. Don't write IN the book. Get a blank sheet, write what house rules you like on it and stick in the front of the DMG. WHen you start a new game, pull this sheet out and let you players read your houserules. Nice and simple. If the group is large...scan compies of said sheet :) . That's what I do anyways.
Urithair 12-31-07, 03:55 PM	Assasins and Shadowdancers step into a shadow and use their connection to darkness to blend into it, hiding in plane sight. Supernatural because they are actually molding shadowstuff to hide. One second you see a guy, the next you see shadow. This is impossible in real life, of course. Rangers, who are using camo appropriate to their terrain, position themselves in that terrain in such a way as to blend in perfectly. One second you see a guy, the next you see terrain. This is extrodinary because it is possible in real life. If you don't believe me then I suggest you look up videos on military techniques for covert action and infiltration. I have seen videos of soldiers doing this type of thing, it can be done, and it is extrodinary.
Cartigan 12-31-07, 04:11 PM	Page 176 DMG: "Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign." So prestige classes are clearly meant to be treated more exclusively than base classes depending on in-game circumstances. As such it is perfectly reasonable to require a character to be trained by an NPC in order to get into a PrC. Only if they are informed that they must train to enter it beforehand. If the pre-requisites don't say the class requires training to enter, any training requirement is a house rule and players should be informed of it, not expected to read it from the DM's mind.
Varia 12-31-07, 04:33 PM	Unfortunately a lot of players, as you can tell by many previous posts, have decided to ignore the DMG's implications about PrCs in general and to just assume that PrCs are just base classes that don't incur multiclassing penalties, and that any character should be able to freely gain prestige class levels without thought of in-game consistency." You think the previous posters actually play with (or have even noticed) the multiclass exp penalties??? Oh hopeful, foolish youth! :P You're being perfectly reasonable and, in fact, doing it right. The only error is in overestimating your player(s) or their bad habits, and thus not making a point of reminding everyone of the prerequisites for PrC's and multiclassing exp penalties, and that those rules will be enforced in the campaign before the campaign started. The need for train for ALL classes and skills is in fact explicitely mentioned in the DMG, along with times and costs for it. Its no longer a core rule as it was in earlier editions (ie- its now an optional variant), but it IS in there if you chose to use it, and really you SHOULD use it for anything the characters wish to improve that they didnt use since last time they levelled up, or didnt explicitely make sufficient time to practice. I usually use a factor of between 2 and 5 times the required professionally assisted training time in informal self-taught practice if they want to do it through practice rather than training, depending on the skill involved. I usually require some professional training for the first several ranks in any skill if the skill is at all technical (smithing, forinstance). You dont just pick up a hammer for the first time one day and decide "I have 5 skill points spare, I think I'll instantly know how to make swords". People apprentice for years to learn smithing- allowing a character to self-teach those 5 points in 5 months (or be trained by a professional in only 5 weeks!) is generosity itself. "We're uber heroes, we should be able to"? No. Get a grip. And twist, if necessary. The suggested times are already extremely generous. Thats one mans opinion, of course, or several mens opinions, if you count the writers of the various editions of D+D. I think I'm in solid company. Anyways, short form- apart from not stressing the membership issue for many PrCs before the start of the campaign, youre entirely in the right. Carry on.
IceFractal 12-31-07, 04:38 PM	Adding a prerequisite, training or otherwise, isn't being a :censored:, but doing so and not telling the players about it is. Imagine this situation: Wizard: Well, we're ready to go explore those ruins. Merchant: Magic wands, get your magic wands here! Wizard: *Already has scrolls* No thanks. Merchant: You should make sure you have a wand! Wizard: Trying to pressure me into a sale, eh? I told you I don't need any. Later: Wizard: I cast Scorching Ray at the Ogre. DM: Because you didn't have a wand, your spell goes wild and hits the Cleric. Wizard: WTF? DM: I decided that Wizards IMC need a wand to focus their power. DM: That's why there was that merchant. Wizard: But you didn't tell me that, and I though the merchant was just trying to make a sale. DM: Well, I can't tell you OOC stuff, that cheapens things! Wizard: :censored: that. It seems pretty obvious that you should tell people when you make houserules, because houserules are OOC information, and you need to tell the players OOC - otherwise you aren't playing the same game as each-other.
CCS 12-31-07, 05:46 PM	Are you justified in requiring the character to recieve some sort of training? Of barring his progress if he doesn't? Hell yes. You don't simply wake up one morning & walk off through a shadow because you've now got x # of XPs & want to.... Well, I guess you maybe you could. But if you didn't know what you were doing that seems like an awfully hard way to learn. And at my table it'd also be all but tatamount to committing suicide.... Think of it this way; In the comics/movies Prof.X gathers up all the mutants at his "school for gifted children", trains them how to use their powers, & then off they go to be superheros. So why's your player think it should work differently for him here in D&D land?
Cartigan 12-31-07, 06:00 PM	So why's your player think it should work differently for him here in D&D land? Because that is how RAW works?
Tequila_Sunrise 12-31-07, 08:16 PM	Only if they are informed that they must train to enter it beforehand. If the pre-requisites don't say the class requires training to enter, any training requirement is a house rule and players should be informed of it, not expected to read it from the DM's mind. You're totally right that a DM should inform his players of training requirements to enter a class. Though in all honesty, a good/considerate/thoughtful player will ask his DM if such a requirement exists. The reason is that we can't strictly label training requirements as house rules; the books don't specifically require them, but they do suggest that the DM should use judgment and discrimination when dealing with multiclassing. Also there is the obvious issue of common sense; saying that a training prerequisite is a house rule is a lot like saying that an in-character conversation with the king in order to roll a diplomacy check is a house rule. So it isn't a house rule to handwave the details of how a character picks up a new set of skills and what the PCs tell the king while the players roll their diplomacy checks, but it also isn't a house rule to require such attention to in-game consistency.
Ikeman04 12-31-07, 09:33 PM	-A couple of things I need to say: -stop putting a -hyphon -at the beginning of lines. -It's irritating. Also, I think that requiring training for entering PrCs and gaining feats only works if you do it every level, for every class, every feat, every skill point, and every spell. It's not fair to pick and choose who has to train for what.
Dusken 12-31-07, 09:46 PM	I think you're justified. My next campaign will have less obvious ways of joining most PrCs. Like all the cool/broken ones. I can see my players faces now when they level up, take a PrC, and I hand it back saying that they need a better ingame reason to take it. Mentor, lost tomes of lore, artifact that grants them the ability to take the class, etc.
Anguish2 12-31-07, 10:16 PM	-A couple of things I need to say: -stop putting a -hyphon -at the beginning of lines. -It's irritating. Hyphen. <Grin>
Cartigan 12-31-07, 11:55 PM	Though in all honesty, a good/considerate/thoughtful player will ask his DM if such a requirement exists. I guess if you played lots of games with DMs who made up their own rules on the fly you would. Otherwise you would assume that the pre-requisites are as stated.
Varia 01-01-08, 11:14 AM	The Half-Orcs themselves have the magical ability to see in pitch black. Your argument is completely and entirely arbitrary, which as DM you are allowed to be but doesn't change the fact. Do you prevent Monks, a martial class, from eventually being able to take their later Supernatural abilities without explicit training? And everyone else is right, if you are arbitrarily changing the requirements for a class and refusing to tell the player who wants to take the class about the change, you are unquestionably being a :censored:. The orcs have a biological (possibly magical in origin, but still biological) ability to see in the dark; its not a skill, any more than your legs are. His arguement has CLEAR precedent both in 3.5 and in all earlier editions of D+D, therefor it is NOT arbitrary. But even if it was, orcs being able to see in the dark is equally abitrary, but I dont see you complaining about that. Or is that what you have planned for tomorrow? After all, the enemy being able to be mean to you at night also seems to be against your easy-mode principles. Do you also complain if the town guards arrest you for committing crimes in broad daylight? Do you only play video games with cheat codes and hacks, perchance? The game REQUIRES a certain amount of "realism" to be successful- enemies fight back or flee when attacked, they dont just stand there and get killed. The sun rises in the morning, left to itself. The npcs have to eat and go to the bathroom. etc. Requiring specific education to learn new skills that you have no prior foundation in is is also entirely realistic. Where did you learn physics and chemistry? Thats right- SCHOOL. Algebra? School! How did you learn to read- thats right, YOU WERE TRAINED! The discerning reader may begin to detect a pattern here. Suggesting that somehow education is unreasonable to the point of being abusive to the players sounds, um, less than clever... I remind you that, BY THE RAW, wizards must research their new spells, they do NOT get them for free without effort. The rules merely assume that this research, this education, is taking place offscreen during downtime between adventures, but it IS required. If, somehow, the character has no offscreen downtime then they should get no new spells except from scrolls/captured spellbooks if time permits. I grant that many many people forget this fact, even module writers and the people who review their work prior to publishing (CotSQ, RHoD are guilty of this, forinstance) but that doesnt make it any less part of the RAW. Monks- there is certainly an excellent case for requiring them to get training for advancing skills. That would be the optional rules in the DMG for training. But you could make an arguement for wizard-style offscreen self-training too, on the basis that they are already monks and thus have the groundings of the monkly culture and skill set, and are merely refining abilities that already exist. But new skills for which the character has no grounding (new classes) is something else entirely. The only question is whether or not the OP should have informed his players before the campaign started what rules would be enforced, and which optional rules would be in place. Obviously he should have, but I think equally obviously he believed that his players had basic common sense too, and that needing education from some source to pick up major new stuff was a no-brainer, and so specifically telling them was not needed. His mistake was one of inexperience and overestimating one of his players. So he should just add it to his checklist of things to do for his next campaign, and have a little DM speech at the beginning of his next session for this campaign to make sure everyone knows all the various house and optional rules for this one, not just the one about PrCs.
Lord Karsus 01-01-08, 11:27 AM	-A couple of things I need to say: -stop putting a -hyphon -at the beginning of lines. -It's irritating. -If you find 'hyphons' irritating, dare I ask what you think of 'indentashuns'? So he should just add it to his checklist of things to do for his next campaign, and have a little DM speech at the beginning of his next session for this campaign to make sure everyone knows all the various house and optional rules for this one, not just the one about PrCs. -Exactly. Never had many house rules to begin with, but I might as well write 'em down and and stick 'em in a sheet inserted into the DMG, as suggested.
Varia 01-01-08, 11:31 AM	It encourages PC to NPC interaction, but if the character in question is a misanthropic loner it would only discourage roleplaying. The player would be required to step out of character to learn from a person his character would never socialize with. Because being a misanthropic loner is ALWAYS the way to success and has no penalties at all... Name a misanthropic loner who didnt get whatever skills he had from non-loner activities or a big stack of books. I'll name you a dozen plus that didnt, Batman forinstance. Loners who dont bow to the necessity of interaction with others, either directly or through books, do not succeed, except maybe in certain narrow areas. And you would not classify PC to NPC interaction as roleplaying? Odd. What DO you classify that as? And what do you classify as roleplaying? Minor poke with a stick- Tailor-made PrCs:- Thats just a tailor-made class variant. Whats prestigious about it? Prestige requires, well, prestige, not just some goober going "look at me, I'm special". :P
DraconsNighthawk 01-01-08, 11:34 AM	WOW. Anyway, I typically think your right Karsus, your one of the few posters that I would listen to on a regular bases. That being said however.... I think your intention was good. Hell it makes sense, and its something I do too in some cases for PrC. But, not letting the player know, was a bit of an jerk. You may not like doing stuff OOC, and thats fine. There are otherways to do it. One, would be having that teach pop out of nowhere, and basically say, "Hey, idiot savant, lookee what I can do!" . Its a bit force.. but it works. somewhat. The other thing to do is, if he tries to take the level, flat out say no. Tell him he has not the training, nor even attempt to train. (IF for some reason, he even does a LITTLE bit of training, like, stating his character tries real hard and focus or concentrates on shadows, or goes to a magic book store and gets books on shadows and studies, OR hell, have a Shadow hit him, drain him of his strength, (Yet mercifully lives somehow) that he was given a curse. The power of shadows. (Aka, the training needed to be a shadow dancer). You might even add a little side affect, such as he he doesn't go in shadows once a week, he loses a little strength or something. Those are just a few ways to do it, and I trust you'll do something worthy.
Varia 01-01-08, 12:08 PM	It doesn't have to say that you have to train for a specific class. But, it does clearly state that characters train between levels. As I said before, training is required, but the exact details for that training are left up to the DM. I'm curious, though, as to why you are getting your knickers all knotted up over something that has absolutely nothing to do with you? How does this one DM's interpretation of the rules and his invoking Rule 0 (which is, for all intents and purposes, a Rule As Written) affect you in any way, shape, or form? The truth of the matter is that it doesn't. Yet, for some reason you chose to call this particular DM a dick, just because he doesn't conform to your view of how the game is "supposed" to be played. I've got news for you. There is no one way nor a wrong way to play D&D. That is a something that you don't seem to understand. He and others are getting their knickers in a knot because- a). Theyre upset about the not-being-informed-before-the-campaign thing (which theyre correct about), but then conflating it into a huge deliberate crime against the playerbase committed willfully and with conniving malice entirely to screw them over. They dont trust their DMs, and have a closet full of tinfoil hats. The possibility of simple DM error doesnt occur to them, nor does the fact that the DM is clearly thinking about the issue and wishes to do the right thing register on them at all, through the crinkling noise of all that tinfoil. or b). Theyre rules-lawyers who have gotten so wrapped up in nit-picking minutiae that they've entirely forgotten the spirit of the game. or c). Theyre deliberately trolling. or d). Theyre part of the dumbed-down WoW generation and you're threatening their sense of entitlement. Right now theyre trying to figure out how to install a "Bring in the next encounter" button so they dont have to walk from room to room to get their exp. or a combination of the above. :)
magicchupacabra 01-01-08, 12:20 PM	Reading over this thread this is what I'm seeing in regards to the player. 1. His imagination isn't very strong. This happens. Gotta deal with it. 2. The player is no longer having fun because of what appears to be a sudden house rule/optional dmg training rule. 3. Why have none of you gotten me coffee yet? Now in regards to the DM there appears to be some issues as well. 1. He wants more role play from the low imagination player. 2. He wants his version of D&D to make more sense with training for leveling because he feels this adds to the fun of the game. 3. Why have you not gotten me coffee yet? This I think can be solved in the following ways, my apologies if they have been stated before. 1. If the player is not capable of in person Role play, ask him to write out/email/IM you the reasons the PC wants to become a shadow dancer and keep in mind that this reason may be as simply as "I like what they can do". An example of this in real life is a guy who wanted to become a navy seal because he thought they were awesome. Granted he was crazy but he's my example. 2. Re-think your training route. Can it make for a more realistic game? Yes, yes it can. Can it make the game more fun for ALL involved? No, no it wont. You may want to adopt the training downtime approach from the DMG. A few days downtime per level to level up where all needed training is decided to have happened in the back ground. That comes up to a few days dead time in game for this to be done. This should be a decent middle ground for you and the players so that EVERYONE is having fun. 3. A large white chocolate mocha with an extra shot from starbucks delivered to me would solve why no one has gotten me coffee and it would work as payment of my advice. :D Overall though I don't think you're being an ass of a DM. I think you might be trying to enforce too much realism in a game that fundamentally breaks down to adults playing pretend with a set base of rules to make it all fair. Now where is my coffee?
Sunic_Flames 01-01-08, 01:24 PM	If you wanted to add prerequisites to the prc such as "requires training" it should have been done as soon as it was understood by the players that it was available as a prc. Adding it after the fact rather suggests you need to be accomodating to the player. Let him/her BECOME a shadowdancer without training but make it clear that advancement beyond mere introduction of 1 level will require it. And I was just about to post and say this, when I find a quote I haven't seen yet that makes it better. You mean people actually advance beyond 1 in Shadowdancer? Shadowdancer = HiPS. :P
Tequila_Sunrise 01-01-08, 02:00 PM	You're being perfectly reasonable and, in fact, doing it right. The only error is in overestimating your player(s) or their bad habits, and thus not making a point of reminding everyone of the prerequisites for PrC's and multiclassing exp penalties, and that those rules will be enforced in the campaign before the campaign started. The need for train for ALL classes and skills is in fact explicitely mentioned in the DMG, along with times and costs for it. Its no longer a core rule as it was in earlier editions (ie- its now an optional variant), but it IS in there if you chose to use it, and really you SHOULD use it for anything the characters wish to improve that they didnt use since last time they levelled up, or didnt explicitely make sufficient time to practice. I usually use a factor of between 2 and 5 times the required professionally assisted training time in informal self-taught practice if they want to do it through practice rather than training, depending on the skill involved. I usually require some professional training for the first several ranks in any skill if the skill is at all technical (smithing, forinstance). You dont just pick up a hammer for the first time one day and decide "I have 5 skill points spare, I think I'll instantly know how to make swords". People apprentice for years to learn smithing- allowing a character to self-teach those 5 points in 5 months (or be trained by a professional in only 5 weeks!) is generosity itself. "We're uber heroes, we should be able to"? No. Get a grip. And twist, if necessary. The suggested times are already extremely generous. Thats one mans opinion, of course, or several mens opinions, if you count the writers of the various editions of D+D. I think I'm in solid company. I don't enforce as much in game consistency as you do; no training required for skills, feats, class abilities of a class you already have, etc. 'Looking over someone's shoulder' is usually enough to learn the ways of their class in my games and I have a tendency to regard classes themselves as metagame concepts rather than in-game cultures/skill sets. But I recognize that this is not necessarily the default assumption of the game, and that it is generous of me to have such lax requirements. Truly, Lord Karsus, you are not using a house rule here and you shouldn't feel like you're putting your player out by requiring his character to have a shadowdancer mentor. But since he did mention to you that he wants his character to become a shadowdancer, you should inform him ASAP that you expect him to have an in-game reason to do so.
Cartigan 01-01-08, 03:15 PM	Truly, Lord Karsus, you are not using a house rule here Changing the RAW is using a house rule. The orcs have a biological (possibly magical in origin, but still biological) ability to see in the dark; its not a skill, any more than your legs are. His arguement has CLEAR precedent both in 3.5 and in all earlier editions of D+D, therefor it is NOT arbitrary. But even if it was, orcs being able to see in the dark is equally abitrary, but I dont see you complaining about that. Or is that what you have planned for tomorrow? After all, the enemy being able to be mean to you at night also seems to be against your easy-mode principles. Do you also complain if the town guards arrest you for committing crimes in broad daylight? Do you only play video games with cheat codes and hacks, perchance? The game REQUIRES a certain amount of "realism" to be successful- enemies fight back or flee when attacked, they dont just stand there and get killed. The sun rises in the morning, left to itself. The npcs have to eat and go to the bathroom. etc. I dismissed the rest because I feel no need to defend myself against the roll-playing crowd who think dice is an affront to a game based around them.
sblaxman 01-01-08, 03:58 PM	If you had established a rule that all prestige classes (or at least a specific list) required training before game, and the players all knew, then it was ok. If you though it up later, and decided that you needed to do it to balance the game, then I'd say you're being a bit unfair. I've played games where I've required training to gain specific skills to level up, so I don't have a problem with it at all, but only if you establish it at level 1 with all your players
Tequila_Sunrise 01-01-08, 06:22 PM	Changing the RAW is using a house rule. Nobody's changing RAW; there is a certain amount of flexibility inherent in the game, in the area where mechanics meet in-game concepts, which the DM is supposed to use to run the game as he sees fit.
navar100 01-01-08, 07:59 PM	Now where is my coffee? Alright already. Here! :whatsthis
Varia 01-01-08, 09:42 PM	I dismissed the rest because I feel no need to defend myself against the roll-playing crowd who think dice is an affront to a game based around them. People who find themselves incapable of defending their position often feel this way. :P I think you mean you think I'm a role-player, not roll-player, since youre clearly in the "my character is a set of abilities and toys, and I'm not the slightest bit interested where or how he got them" group, and thats a subset of roll-players. But I'm curious, where, exactly, have I ever suggested that I'm somehow affronted by dice (except when they roll 1's, of course) or hate all crunch? You're not just making crap up now in an attempt to deflect attention from your positions weakness, by any chance? Are you? Hmm?
Cuindless 01-01-08, 10:10 PM	Because being a misanthropic loner is ALWAYS the way to success and has no penalties at all... Name a misanthropic loner who didnt get whatever skills he had from non-loner activities or a big stack of books. I'll name you a dozen plus that didnt, Batman forinstance. Loners who dont bow to the necessity of interaction with others, either directly or through books, do not succeed, except maybe in certain narrow areas. And you would not classify PC to NPC interaction as roleplaying? Odd. What DO you classify that as? And what do you classify as roleplaying? Minor poke with a stick- Tailor-made PrCs:- Thats just a tailor-made class variant. Whats prestigious about it? Prestige requires, well, prestige, not just some goober going "look at me, I'm special". :P I didn't say that being a misanthropic loner is a good thing, all I said was that it's a possible character concept. If the character doesn't want to engage others and wants to rely on his own learning, then forcing interaction for the purposes of advancement only encourages the player to play his character differently. Roleplaying is playing a role. If the role you're playing is one that doesn't interact, then interaction isn't necessary to the role playing... I didn't understand the tailor-made PrCs poke... if you create a group of prestige classes that are tailored made to the campaign and the players, how is that not prestigious. To me this wasn't a coherent argument.
Cartigan 01-01-08, 11:28 PM	Nobody's changing RAW; there is a certain amount of flexibility inherent in the game, in the area where mechanics meet in-game concepts, which the DM is supposed to use to run the game as he sees fit. Yes, but those changes are house rules because they are not part of the RAW. If the player has to be told what the rules are because they arn't written down in the RAW, they are DM house rules. The flexibility is is to make said house rules.
Mock26 01-01-08, 11:58 PM	I guess if you played lots of games with DMs who made up their own rules on the fly you would. Otherwise you would assume that the pre-requisites are as stated. It is just as ignorant (and wrong) for a player to assume that everything is as it is listed in the books as it is for the DM to change rules on the spot. The blame cannot lay fully on the DM in this situation. He left enough clues and dropped some pretty blatant hints to the player in question and that player missed them. Additionally, when the player said that he was interested in going into the shadow business he should have asked the DM if that was allowed and if there were any restrictions about it. The DM should have thought it over and come back to him at a later time with an answer (I think it would be wrong for the DM to give an answer to this type of a question without thinking it over). The Dm should have also spoken up and said he would think it over. Both are wrong. But, unlike some, I don't think the DM is doing this out of spite or meanness or because he's power hungry and is trying to ruin the game for the palyer in question. To me he just didn't think things through when the player first came to him and he later came up with something he thought would make the game better for the players in question. But, the DM is within his rights as the DM to require training to become a shadowdancer. And that is what he is doing. I applaud his decision to require training because training adds a depth of realism to the game (and, Yes, I know it is a fantasy game with dragons and magic and elves and orcs and all that, but it is a fantasy game that is grounded in reality and we, as players, use our experience with reality to understand and enjoy this game of fantasy). Personally, I think that just acquiring certain skills and feats and classes out of the blue is just lame and ruins the flavor of the game. If there was a group of desert nomads, all fighters, all spending their lives in a desert without ever seeing more water than a wineskin's worth and they go up in a level there is no way in hades that any of them to multiclass into something like wizard or rogue or take a skill like swimming or sailing. To me that takes a reality based fantasy game and turns it into a game that just isn't believable any more. So, I applaud the DM for requiring training for this class. ======================================== =========================== The only question is whether or not the OP should have informed his players before the campaign started what rules would be enforced, and which optional rules would be in place. Obviously he should have, but I think equally obviously he believed that his players had basic common sense too, and that needing education from some source to pick up major new stuff was a no-brainer, and so specifically telling them was not needed. His mistake was one of inexperience and overestimating one of his players. So he should just add it to his checklist of things to do for his next campaign, and have a little DM speech at the beginning of his next session for this campaign to make sure everyone knows all the various house and optional rules for this one, not just the one about PrCs. Quoted for truth! Not every DM can plan for every possible thing that comes up in his campaign! There are a lot of situations that can come up in a game that the DM just hadn't thought of, and when they come up he needs to make a decision on that situation and then move on with the game. I just wish that more people would realize this.
danielinthewolvesden 01-02-08, 12:18 AM	I applaud his decision to require training because training adds a depth of realism to the game .... Tell ya what. Go train for a a while to cast Fireball. Let me know how that works out for you, OK? If training is so special, why can not adventurers just train and go up levels? Training is boring and 90% of the time a DM crock.
Mock26 01-02-08, 12:41 AM	Tell ya what. Go train for a a while to cast Fireball. Let me know how that works out for you, OK? Talk about missing the point! I can't cast Fireball because fireball is a fantasy spell from a fantasy game. It isn't real. But, you seemed to miss the part where I said that I see D&D as being a fantasy game grounded in reality. Or do you not think that there is anything realistic about the game of D&D? Do you honestly think that D&D is NOT grounded in the real world? Do not characters bleed when they get stabbed? Do they not fall when they jump off a cliff? Do they not burn when the are set on fire? Sure, there are ways around all of that, but for most of this fantasy world things happen as they would in our world. If training is so special, why can not adventurers just train and go up levels? Training is boring and 90% of the time a DM crock. As for it being boring, well, it can be. Training can be very detailed and played out over several session (which I would actually find boring) or it can take place over a few minutes and require a few dice rolls (which is how I do it) or it can be a single sentence that covers everything. But, the way I do it isn't boring to any of my players. Why is that? Why aren't they bored? They're supposed to be bored, right? While training is obviously boring to you what apparently isn't obvious to you is that it isn't boring to everyone. Yet, you seem to think that how you play the game and how you view the game is the only way for people to play and enjoy the game. As for it being a DM crock, that is again your opinion. And once again you are confusing your opinion with being some sort of a universal truth. Can explain why it is a "DM crock?" Just stating that it is a crock doesn't make it a crock. Please, since you are obviously the expert on how the game HAS to be played, enlighten us who don't think training is boring and or a crock as to why we are wrong. Why does it make sense that someone who has never had any monk training, never known a monk, has never seen a monk, can suddenly has all these monk skills? Explain to me how someone who has never seen a body of water large enough to swim in could just suddenly learn how to swim. Explain to me how someone who had never seen some exotic weapon could suddenly just pick one up and be an expert in its use. I find it interesting, though, that the people who wrote the DMG would have included anything at all about training if it was just a crock. Did they forget to consult you when they wrote the book?
Kessalin Talira 01-02-08, 01:02 AM	LK, do you have any other PCs with prestige classes in your campaign right now? If so, did they have to undergo formal (that's the key difference between the downtime training and a PrC requirement) training to take their first levels of the prestige class? If there are other PrCs in the group, and they didn't have to get formal training, then I don't think you're going to be able to justify the decision to the shadowdancer wannabe. If the other PrCs did require formal training, then the player should have taken the hint, or at least considered the possibility that they'd need to train with someone. Have you mentioned anything to the player yet that they're going to need formal training to enter Shadowdancer? If not, you should make sure they do know, unless you're planning on disallowing the PrC for a level or two. You've said your opinion of the player's creativity isn't very high; it could be that they're honestly unaware of the possibility that they won't just be able to fall into a shadow when their XP counter goes "ding". If nothing else, I would say you're justified in disallowing a PrC that the character has shown no interest in whatsoever, because then it just becomes a case of cherry-picking the class for cool abilities. If you don't want to disallow the PrC for whatever reason, you could create a group of shadowdancers that want to recruit the player, whether he wants to join or not. It seems this group takes a dim view of people spontaneously manifesting the abilities they train so hard to attain. Kind of like known spellfire wielders and, well, everyone. After a few attacks he might just be a little more willing to join another organization for the support they'll give him against this other group of shadowdancers; or they might bail him out once, and then make it very clear that he's on his own for any other attacks.
Varia 01-02-08, 03:51 AM	I didn't say that being a misanthropic loner is a good thing, all I said was that it's a possible character concept. If the character doesn't want to engage others and wants to rely on his own learning, then forcing interaction for the purposes of advancement only encourages the player to play his character differently. Roleplaying is playing a role. If the role you're playing is one that doesn't interact, then interaction isn't necessary to the role playing... I didn't understand the tailor-made PrCs poke... if you create a group of prestige classes that are tailored made to the campaign and the players, how is that not prestigious. To me this wasn't a coherent argument. Loners- the player is entitled to choose any concept he likes. However, he is NOT entitled to escape the consequences of that choice. If a player chooses to play a hair-trigger temper and a rabid hatred of authority he may. But after he does his rebel without a clue thing and kills 4 guardsmen trying to arrest him for drunk and disorderly one night because "I hate cops and dont like being told what to do", he may not claim "You're oppressing my RP choice" to avoid having the town guard coming after him. And if a player chooses to be a loner totally outside society he cannot complain if he looses the benefits of that society for as long as his self-imposed exile lasts. Yes, it encourages him to play his character differently. And it should. There is a reason why misanthropic loners are rare- theyre not successful. Why would you give any player something they dont deserve by ignoring the consequences of their choices? Roleplaying- er, wasnt it you who said you didnt consider interacting with the NPCs to be roleplaying though? It wasnt an issue of whether or not a loner would talk to people, it sounded like you didnt consider any interaction with npcs to be roleplaying. It sounded odd. PrCs- Oh that was said with the idea that it was suggested that a DM should create a PrC specifically for the player, with the feeling that it would be only for that player. That would make him an unknown in the world, and thus without prestige, at least for his class, if possibly not for his deeds, which made calling it a PrC rather than just another class sound rather silly to me, hence the poke. If the DM then goes and creates one or more organisations in the world that use that new class then yes, it could be a PrC, assuming its both rare and has some mystique about it. Its just that it didnt really sound like that was what was being talked about is all. :)
Varia 01-02-08, 04:18 AM	If training is so special, why can not adventurers just train and go up levels? Training is boring and 90% of the time a DM crock. Er, who says they cant just train and go up levels? Do you think every person in the world who is higher than level one got there by whacking orcs in the face? Did that lvl 5 commoner destroy a kobold army earlier in his life to gain those levels? How did the characters get their first level? Were they, you know, trained, perhaps?... Did any martial-artist black-belt get his skill punching out muggers, or did they just TRAIN and PRACTICE in the dojo? Navy SEALS are considered elite troops (and thus arguably higher level). Do they all have to kill 10 guys for exp before they can apply for SEAL training? Or, on a more fantasy note, I offer you every Hollywood movie training montage ever made. Of course you can gain levels by training and practice. Its just that its not a money-making process, not a gear-aquiring process, not a fame-creating process, not a fast process and not exactly a riveting process to play out in-game. So people dont want to do it that way, very rarely try to do it that way, and are rarely left alone long enough by the DM to do so anyway before an adventure they cant ignore leaps on their face. But in principle there's no reason whatsoever why a character with sufficient finances couldnt decide to just sit back and train for a couple of years and gain a level if they really wanted to, or it otherwise fits the campaign. Training isnt boring, FOR THE PLAYER, since the player doesnt have to play it all out, any more than they have to play out the 5 day walk to the next city, or the 2 week scouring of the countryside to locate the hidden bandit cave in real time. Its just "I have some cash, I'm going off to train with Bob the Basket Sensei" and the DM saying "Ok, its 7 weeks later and youre done learning basket-weaving. What do you do next?". Maybe there's a dice roll in there somewhere. 30 seconds and youre done. If you can get horribly, game-breakingly bored in 30 seconds then go see a doctor. And if the player isnt bored, then why are you complaining about it?
Cuindless 01-02-08, 05:03 AM	Loners- the player is entitled to choose any concept he likes. However, he is NOT entitled to escape the consequences of that choice. If a player chooses to play a hair-trigger temper and a rabid hatred of authority he may. But after he does his rebel without a clue thing and kills 4 guardsmen trying to arrest him for drunk and disorderly one night because "I hate cops and dont like being told what to do", he may not claim "You're oppressing my RP choice" to avoid having the town guard coming after him. And if a player chooses to be a loner totally outside society he cannot complain if he looses the benefits of that society for as long as his self-imposed exile lasts. Yes, it encourages him to play his character differently. And it should. There is a reason why misanthropic loners are rare- theyre not successful. Why would you give any player something they dont deserve by ignoring the consequences of their choices? Roleplaying- er, wasnt it you who said you didnt consider interacting with the NPCs to be roleplaying though? It wasnt an issue of whether or not a loner would talk to people, it sounded like you didnt consider any interaction with npcs to be roleplaying. It sounded odd. PrCs- Oh that was said with the idea that it was suggested that a DM should create a PrC specifically for the player, with the feeling that it would be only for that player. That would make him an unknown in the world, and thus without prestige, at least for his class, if possibly not for his deeds, which made calling it a PrC rather than just another class sound rather silly to me, hence the poke. If the DM then goes and creates one or more organisations in the world that use that new class then yes, it could be a PrC, assuming its both rare and has some mystique about it. Its just that it didnt really sound like that was what was being talked about is all. :) Ahh... misunderstandings all around, then. I understand what you're saying about the misanthropic loners not being successful and not being able to hide behind "roleplaying choices" to avoid the consequences. My only point was that attempting to force interaction to encourage roleplaying would actually cause the reverse. It's the old "one white raven" argument. Usually PC to NPC interaction is roleplaying, I agree, but in this one unusual case that wouldn't be correct. I'm glad we got that all straightened out.
Etarnon 01-02-08, 07:17 AM	Op, I admire the question. Seems like a lot of crap has been tossed your way for opening yourself to it. My solution would be IC: Your (shadowlord whoever) directly has a group of shadowdancers approach the PC, when alone. Coming out of the shadows, they confront him: "Word has gotten around that you wish to join our ranks. We control the shadows. We dance in the darkness. We don't tolerate outsiders, ever. Your choice is to join us, or forever be excluded. We want to make this perfectly clear. You join us, train with us, work with us, and we'll convey the secrets of our art, and you will gain the fear and prestige that others have for us. If not, you will never learn it. We guarantee this. Join, or be left out. Choose." If he says, "screw off, etc. I'm not joining", it's been made clear, it is an IC choice, and that's how I'd rule it. In effect, it is do you REALLY want to be a shadowdancer, or not? If he says "No." Then tell him, OOC, (because he hasn't gotten it) "Okay, so you have changed your mind about being a shadowdancer? This is your last chance. I tried dropping hints before." I've done this on my Neverwinter Nights server, many times. No one who wanted to be a shadowdancer ever refused. If the character can't get a clue, he doesn't deserve to be a shadowdancer, because there's a limit on "coddling players (and their characters) to the point of exhaustion." (TM)
Lord Karsus 01-02-08, 07:46 AM	LK, do you have any other PCs with prestige classes in your campaign right now? -No, I do not. I do have one player who has hinted that she might be interested in taking a PrC at a later time, but has never given it any thought past that point. Said PC is a member of a Bardic College, and often consults them/uses their services, so if it were a Bard-specific PrC, I'd allow it, since teaching said PrC would be something that is done at a Bardic College. Virtuoso 101. -Were it a PrC that didn't bestow any supernatural effects to a character who could not explain the hows/whys as to where these powers came from, I'd allow a player to freely take these classes. The hows/whys of how a player who can't cast magic suddenly is gaining magical powers is where the crux lies. Loners- the player is entitled to choose any concept he likes. However, he is NOT entitled to escape the consequences of that choice. If a player chooses to play a hair-trigger temper and a rabid hatred of authority he may. But after he does his rebel without a clue thing and kills 4 guardsmen trying to arrest him for drunk and disorderly one night because "I hate cops and dont like being told what to do", he may not claim "You're oppressing my RP choice" to avoid having the town guard coming after him. -Ironically enough, the very same PC does in fact have a hair-trigger temper, and a rabid dislike of authority. He has been arrested before (thankfully for not killing guardsmen- had he, I would have had his character ended), and was quite livid when said character (along with all of the other PCs, mind you. It was the introduction to get the party together) was thrown in jail. This was after he murderer a innkeeper for witnessing him brawl, and kill, a rival of his. Not exactly the introduction I originally envisioned, but it did get the party together... Coming out of the shadows, they confront him: "Word has gotten around that you wish to join our ranks. We control the shadows. We dance in the darkness. We don't tolerate outsiders, ever. Your choice is to join us, or forever be excluded. We want to make this perfectly clear. You join us, train with us, work with us, and we'll convey the secrets of our art, and you will gain the fear and prestige that others have for us. If not, you will never learn it. We guarantee this. Join, or be left out. Choose." -When the PC meets that NPC in a mission or three, I was going to make it slightly more ambiguous, but I like most of the speech there. I'll be using parts of it.
ravenshrike 01-02-08, 09:07 AM	My mistake. It is not listed in the DMG. It is listed on page 58 of the Player's Handbook (version 3.5). It clearly states, in the Rules As Written: That's so the character can't say, "I build my own carpentry business and then make oodles of cash which I then spend on my character before the next adventure.".
Cartigan 01-02-08, 10:31 AM	It is just as ignorant (and wrong) for a player to assume that everything is as it is listed in the books as it is for the DM to change rules on the spot. So everyone is automatically ignorant? He left enough clues and dropped some pretty blatant hints to the player in question and that player missed them. So? Maybe the player assumed that was just part of the story and had no bearing on his plans. Also, why is your position that all players should be forced to do everything how the DM wants? Maybe they have their own motivations and directions? Apparently you are pro-railroading. Additionally, when the player said that he was interested in going into the shadow business he should have asked the DM if that was allowed and if there were any restrictions about it. Why are you in this thread if you havn't read the OP? The player told the DM he wanted to play a Shadowdancer. The DM should have thought it over and come back to him at a later time with an answer (I think it would be wrong for the DM to give an answer to this type of a question without thinking it over). What kind of time do you need to spend thinking about if some one can play a PrC or not? That must be a slow as hell campaign because I can only assume each the time of each decision is multiplied by an equally large amount of time. But, unlike some, I don't think the DM is doing this out of spite or meanness Actually he is. He said it in the OP (which I'm not convinced you read). Not letting him play a class he told you he was aiming for because he wasn't playing exactly how you wanted him to play is doing something out of spite. But, the DM is within his rights as the DM to require training to become a shadowdancer. Yes, everyone here agrees with that, but that isn't was the topic is about. realism This game is about as real as my buddy Harvey and forcing realism ex posto facto is not improving it. Quoted for truth! Not every DM can plan for every possible thing that comes up in his campaign! There are a lot of situations that can come up in a game that the DM just hadn't thought of, and when they come up he needs to make a decision on that situation and then move on with the game. I just wish that more people would realize this. And if he decides to change things halfway through the game, he must talk to people OOC. I fail to see how OOC information about the rules cheapens the game.
Lord Karsus 01-02-08, 10:34 AM	Why are you in this thread if you havn't read the OP? The player told the DM he wanted to play a Shadowdancer. -No, the player in question never came to the OP, and outright said, "I want to be a Shadowdancer". The player in question was flipping through the DMG, and made an offhand remark to himself, which everyone heard, saying, and I quote, "Wow, Hide in Plain Sight. That's awesome. I need to take levels in this." Hence the "as an offhand comment" part. -For as much as you like to reference the original post, read it a little more carefully.
Cartigan 01-02-08, 10:38 AM	-No, the player in question never came to the OP, and outright said, "I want to be a Shadowdancer". The player in question was flipping through the DMG, and made an offhand remark to himself, which everyone heard, saying, and I quote, "Wow, Hide in Plain Sight. That's awesome. I need to take levels in this." Hence the "as an offhand comment" part. -For as much as you like to reference the original post, read it a little more carefully. Fine, it was not that clear in the OP. From the OP, I was assumed you were told about it. Maybe you should relax the absurd no OOC policy and actually talk to your players about what they do and don't want to do.
Lord Karsus 01-02-08, 10:39 AM	Fine, it was not that clear in the OP. From the OP, I was assumed you were told about it. Maybe you should relax the absurd no OOC policy and actually talk to your players about what they do and don't want to do. -The "as an offhand comment" seemed clear enough to me. -As I am playing tonight, though, I am. I asked to players to fill out a "Bio sheet" I made up, with relevant information on their descriptions, histories, likes/dislikes, where they see the character headed, etc., and tonight, I think I'll ask everyone for an update to that.
Etarnon 01-02-08, 12:26 PM	Not letting him play a class he told you he was aiming for because he wasn't playing exactly how you wanted him to play is doing something out of spite. Unless he's playing or planning to play the class wrong. I want to be an assassin / barbarian / pick one, because then I can kill the whole party. (In an all good aligned / high middle ages game setup.) It doesn't seem like spit to me, seems like lack of communication, compounded with differing concepts of what shadowdancers do, are and consist of from both Player and DM. The no OOC needs to cease, that's obvious.
Moonslayer 01-02-08, 04:04 PM	Just for my 2 coppers, I don't see why it so impossible (Disclaimer: impossible in the D&D universe, NOT the real world) for a character to spontaneously manifest Shadowdancer abilities, even though they are magical in nature. Perhaps the character has a weak sorcerous bloodline that has interacted with his skulking ways to begin parting the Shadows for him (just the first possiblity that came to mind). That being said, if you feel that the abilities would not manifest without help that is your choice. I do agree with the folks that have said you should make this clear to the players ASAP. This person may have had a passing fancy for the Shadowdancer but another player might be seriously planning for a PrC and will probably take the surprise requirement poorly.
Ikeman04 01-02-08, 06:00 PM	-If you find 'hyphons' irritating, dare I ask what you think of 'indentashuns'? I think you misspelled 'indentations', and I don't might them, when used properly(beginning of paragraphs and such).
Kessalin Talira 01-02-08, 06:07 PM	I think you misspelled 'indentations', and I don't might them, when used properly(beginning of paragraphs and such).The misspelling was intentional, I'm sure, in light of the misspelling of "hyphens". :)
Mock26 01-02-08, 08:03 PM	Just for my 2 coppers, I don't see why it so impossible (Disclaimer: impossible in the D&D universe, NOT the real world) for a character to spontaneously manifest Shadowdancer abilities, even though they are magical in nature. Perhaps the character has a weak sorcerous bloodline that has interacted with his skulking ways to begin parting the Shadows for him (just the first possiblity that came to mind). That being said, if you feel that the abilities would not manifest without help that is your choice. I do agree with the folks that have said you should make this clear to the players ASAP. This person may have had a passing fancy for the Shadowdancer but another player might be seriously planning for a PrC and will probably take the surprise requirement poorly. It could be possible for spontaneous shadowdancer abilities (or any skill/feat/ability/class) to manifest themselves in the character, so long as that is how the DM runs his game. There are many ways to run a game and handle "training," none of which are wrong. Sure, spontaneious manifestation of abilities is wrong for me, but that doesn't mean they are wrong for everyone else.
Lord Karsus 01-03-08, 12:46 AM	The misspelling was intentional, I'm sure, in light of the misspelling of "hyphens". :) -Indeed.
Tequila_Sunrise 01-03-08, 12:47 AM	Yes, but those changes are house rules because they are not part of the RAW. If the player has to be told what the rules are because they arn't written down in the RAW, they are DM house rules. The flexibility is is to make said house rules. I'm sorry you can't see beyond your own narrow interpretation, but I won't discuss circles with you because interpretations can't be disproven. Good day, TS
Nid_Food 01-03-08, 10:26 AM	With any other members of the party, did you require them to recieve training? There are a number of core classes that have SU abilities. If you didn't require anyone to recieve training before now, then you're being an ass. If you refuse to tell the player that you changed the rules on him, you're being an ass. Remember, we play D&D for fun. How would you feel if you were a PC and told your DM that you wanted to be a shadowdancer (or any other PrC), and when you meet the PreReqs and go to take the first level in it, the DM says "Oh by the way, you need special training, so you can't take that level." Some things require out of game discussion. Rules are one of them. You changed a rule, so you need to let your players know.
concerro 01-03-08, 01:05 PM	-I have a played, who in the past, made it known that he was going to become a Shadowdancer as soon as he met the requirements, as an offhand comment. -In my mind, the Shadowdancer is inherently magical in nature. I mean, he/she is able to move through shadows, create illusions, see in the darkness, etc. A normal person wouldn't be able to do that. -I'm going to require this PC to undergo "Shadowdancer training". I have already introduced a NPC that is a Shadowdancer, and loosely works with the PCs, as they belong to the same secret soceity, and run into each other every so often. Even though the requirements for Shadowdancer don't say anything about training, in my mind, there needs to be some kind of training to justify being able to perform some of these supernatural feats. -When given the opportunity to join said secret organization, 3 out of 4 characters agreed to. The one character who didn't was the character who wants to become a Shadowdancer. When they were being recruited, I made sure the recruiter alluded to being able to teach the PCs all kinds of magical and martial techniques and lore. I'm going to also include the Shadowdancer NPC in a future scenario, and have him comment that he sense the PC "covets his power", and that he can train the PC. -Now, if the PC does not accept, that's two offers he's turned down- one blatent, one not so blatent. If he makes it to the level he needs to be able to become a Shadowdancer, I am going to deny him (at least, until he can get training). Am I justified, do you think, or am I being a :censored:? -I haven't talked to him out-of-character, since I abhor that. I don't like doing that kind of stuff. I, personally, think it cheapens the game. If you know that a player is planning his PC to go a certain direction, and it may be a problem then tell him. I know I would be upset if my DM let me go through X levels of playing, and then say they knew all along I would not get said class. The decision to be a PrC is an OOC decision, and so is the decision of the DM to allow, so it should be handled that way. The game is about fun, and unhappy players don't have fun. If you and the player don't see eye to eye then he/she can retire the character and do something else.
concerro 01-03-08, 01:21 PM	I've read the rules. The point of the matter is that we interpret them differently. That's it. I actually used to think you were mature enough to see that difference. I guess I was wrong. Training in a class, just like wizards studying to learn spells in their downtime, is fluff and to require it during gameplay is an option(not a rule), and if he is not doing it to the other PC's then it is unfair. If it were a hard and fast rule then a specific time would be required such as 4 hours a day, or 8 hours a day, or some other number. Whether or not you have noticed WoTC does not make a rule, and then walk away with the DM to fill in the blanks. The only things that are fill in the blanks are guidelines, such as weapon pricing, making new spells, and well, you get the point. There are some rules that are not clear, but there are no half-rules, and to say you have to do this, and leave it as that is an incomplete ruling.
concerro 01-03-08, 01:40 PM	It is just as ignorant (and wrong) for a player to assume that everything is as it is listed in the books as it is for the DM to change rules on the spot. The blame cannot lay fully on the DM in this situation. He left enough clues and dropped some pretty blatant hints to the player in question and that player missed them. Additionally, when the player said that he was interested in going into the shadow business he should have asked the DM if that was allowed and if there were any restrictions about it. The DM should have thought it over and come back to him at a later time with an answer (I think it would be wrong for the DM to give an answer to this type of a question without thinking it over). The Dm should have also spoken up and said he would think it over. Both are wrong. But, unlike some, I don't think the DM is doing this out of spite or meanness or because he's power hungry and is trying to ruin the game for the palyer in question. To me he just didn't think things through when the player first came to him and he later came up with something he thought would make the game better for the players in question. But, the DM is within his rights as the DM to require training to become a shadowdancer. And that is what he is doing. I applaud his decision to require training because training adds a depth of realism to the game (and, Yes, I know it is a fantasy game with dragons and magic and elves and orcs and all that, but it is a fantasy game that is grounded in reality and we, as players, use our experience with reality to understand and enjoy this game of fantasy). Personally, I think that just acquiring certain skills and feats and classes out of the blue is just lame and ruins the flavor of the game. If there was a group of desert nomads, all fighters, all spending their lives in a desert without ever seeing more water than a wineskin's worth and they go up in a level there is no way in hades that any of them to multiclass into something like wizard or rogue or take a skill like swimming or sailing. To me that takes a reality based fantasy game and turns it into a game that just isn't believable any more. So, I applaud the DM for requiring training for this class. ======================================== =========================== Quoted for truth! Not every DM can plan for every possible thing that comes up in his campaign! There are a lot of situations that can come up in a game that the DM just hadn't thought of, and when they come up he needs to make a decision on that situation and then move on with the game. I just wish that more people would realize this. These people are probably in a gaming group, meaning they have gamed together before. Every gaming group I have ever been in plays a little differently, and if you always play a certain way, then until told differently that things have changed why should you think otherwise? I don't make my players say, "DM I am training", and if I denied them a level because I did not inform them of the new rule that nobody except for the DM knows about, then I would probably be on my way to finding a new group. I have played in a group where I had to train, but I was told about it upfront, not in the middle of the game, or even worse, not told at all until it was to late.
concerro 01-03-08, 01:48 PM	Nobody's changing RAW; there is a certain amount of flexibility inherent in the game, in the area where mechanics meet in-game concepts, which the DM is supposed to use to run the game as he sees fit. Any ruling that is not in the book is a house rule. Even if WotC gives some terrible explanation of how something works, such as can a thrikreen shoot two bows in one round since it has four arms(emailed them about this), it is a houserule. If you can't show it to me in some Wotc publication then it is a houserule. Either WotC made the ruling or the Dm did, and in the latter it is a houserule. It really is that simple.
Man in the Funny Hat 01-03-08, 04:12 PM	-A couple of things I need to say: -stop putting a -hyphon -at the beginning of lines. -It's irritating. Hyphen. <Grin> Now I need to name a character Hyphongrin the Gryphonman. Thanks a lot.
Mock26 01-03-08, 04:18 PM	These people are probably in a gaming group, meaning they have gamed together before. Every gaming group I have ever been in plays a little differently, and if you always play a certain way, then until told differently that things have changed why should you think otherwise? I don't make my players say, "DM I am training", and if I denied them a level because I did not inform them of the new rule that nobody except for the DM knows about, then I would probably be on my way to finding a new group. I have played in a group where I had to train, but I was told about it upfront, not in the middle of the game, or even worse, not told at all until it was to late. Not every DM is perfect. They all can't remember or know to list everything up front. They all can't anticipate every single possible suggestion/idea/whatever that might come from a player during the campaign and have something ready and waiting for just such a situation. They all can't be immune from making mistakes.
Mock26 01-03-08, 04:24 PM	It is just as ignorant (and wrong) for a player to assume that everything is as it is listed in the books as it is for the DM to change rules on the spot.So everyone is automatically ignorant? I did not say that everyone is automatically ignorant. But, as far as I'm concerned, any player who doesn't ask at the beginning of the campaign/game if the DM has any house rules that he should know about is ignorant. The DM should have thought it over and come back to him at a later time with an answer (I think it would be wrong for the DM to give an answer to this type of a question without thinking it over). What kind of time do you need to spend thinking about if some one can play a PrC or not? That must be a slow as hell campaign because I can only assume each the time of each decision is multiplied by an equally large amount of time. As much time as the DM thinks he needs, so long as it doesn't bring the campaign to a complete halt. Not every DM likes any, some, or all of the Prestige Classes. Not every DM has completely thought over how any given Prestige Class would affect his campaign or whether or not it would fit in his campaign. If someone came up to me and said they wanted to play a certain Prestige Class and if I wasn't completely familiar with it I wouldn't give an answer until the next session so that I could have time to read the Class description in detail and spend some time thinking on how it would impact my game. And if he decides to change things halfway through the game, he must talk to people OOC. I fail to see how OOC information about the rules cheapens the game. Um, who said anything about an out of character discussion cheaping the game? You seem to have pulled that little rabbit out of your hat because nowhere did I say that.
Cold Napalm 01-03-08, 05:32 PM	I did not say that everyone is automatically ignorant. But, as far as I'm concerned, any player who doesn't ask at the beginning of the campaign/game if the DM has any house rules that he should know about is ignorant. How is this the player's fault?!? I'm sorry, but as a DM I hand out my sheet of houserules at the start of ANY game. No need to ask. It's MY job to set up the world...not the players to ask so does this work in your world? As much time as the DM thinks he needs, so long as it doesn't bring the campaign to a complete halt. Not every DM likes any, some, or all of the Prestige Classes. Not every DM has completely thought over how any given Prestige Class would affect his campaign or whether or not it would fit in his campaign. If someone came up to me and said they wanted to play a certain Prestige Class and if I wasn't completely familiar with it I wouldn't give an answer until the next session so that I could have time to read the Class description in detail and spend some time thinking on how it would impact my game. And this is something you didn't do BEFORE setting up the campaign because.... No really, being a badly prepared DM generally makes you a BAD DM. IF the PrC was from a new books to the group, that is one thing, but in this case, it's a DMG PrC. The DM should have made his ruling on this way before the game started. Even then, at the START of the campaign, the player said he was interested in the shadowdancer...I assume more then one session has passed and the DM has not told his player the changes to the rules. And he has made rules changes...just not told anyone about it. THAT is the issue. I don't care how pro-DM power you are, this just is a BAD thing. I mean honestly, nobody is saying that making the shadowdancer require training is bad or the Dm can't do that or any of that sort. We are just saying he need to let his players know of the rules change, period.
Mock26 01-03-08, 06:00 PM	How is this the player's fault?!? I'm sorry, but as a DM I hand out my sheet of houserules at the start of ANY game. No need to ask. It's MY job to set up the world...not the players to ask so does this work in your world? That statement was about player's in general, and was a response to another post. And I'm not disputing that it is the job of the DM to tell the players about house rules and such. But, I think that any player who isn't concerned enough about the game to ask the DM about house rules and such then I think that shows a profound ignorance. Sometimes DM's forget to hand out such a sheet. Sometimes they get distracted by some othe question just before they discuss house rules. Mabye the DM's cat coughs up a hairball just before the discussion of house rules (this actually happened to me at the start of a my current campaign and I forgot to hand out my sheet of houserules, and fortunately a player brought up the issue and it reminded me to hand out the sheet). Maybe the DM's phone rings and he has to answer it. A myriad number of reasons can pop that prevent or delay the DM from discussing house rules. My statement that players should ask in no way meant that the DM was under no obligation to discuss house rules or that the obligation was solely that of the players. I think that both the DM and the players have an obligatin (the DM to the players and the Players to themselves) to bring up the issue. But, in my mind, players should be concerned enough about the game to ask questions about the DM's game. Or rather, he should be prepared to ask that question. And this is something you didn't do BEFORE setting up the campaign because.... No really, being a badly prepared DM generally makes you a BAD DM. IF the PrC was from a new books to the group, that is one thing, but in this case, it's a DMG PrC. The DM should have made his ruling on this way before the game started. Even then, at the START of the campaign, the player said he was interested in the shadowdancer...I assume more then one session has passed and the DM has not told his player the changes to the rules. And he has made rules changes...just not told anyone about it. THAT is the issue. I don't care how pro-DM power you are, this just is a BAD thing. I mean honestly, nobody is saying that making the shadowdancer require training is bad or the Dm can't do that or any of that sort. We are just saying he need to let his players know of the rules change, period. So, you're saying that DM's have to be perfect, that before a campaign they should have thought of every single possible thing that could possibly turn up in a campaign? That's a crock of dragon dung. DM's are human. They make mistakes. Even if the player brought it up at the beginning of the campaign it is possible, for whatever reason, that it slipped the DM's mind until a later point of time. Like I said, he's human. He made some mistakes. I don't think that that is reason enough to crucify him.
concerro 01-03-08, 07:31 PM	Not every DM is perfect. They all can't remember or know to list everything up front. They all can't anticipate every single possible suggestion/idea/whatever that might come from a player during the campaign and have something ready and waiting for just such a situation. They all can't be immune from making mistakes. I am responding as I see your quotes so if you cover something I apologize ahead of time. Every DM I have played with writes up a campaign guide that has what is, and not is allowed ahead of time such as classes, PRC's, potential broken spells. This clears a lot of questions up front. Sometimes things get past the guide that he did not anticipate so he/she puts in the next guide, and lets the group know that a particular combination of feats, spells, and so on will not be allowed again. In this situation the DM knew ahead of time that training is required, and if the game has not yet taken place, then he should inform the player as a courtesy that new rules are in place.
Mock26 01-03-08, 08:00 PM	I am responding as I see your quotes so if you cover something I apologize ahead of time. Every DM I have played with writes up a campaign guide that has what is, and not is allowed ahead of time such as classes, PRC's, potential broken spells. This clears a lot of questions up front. Sometimes things get past the guide that he did not anticipate so he/she puts in the next guide, and lets the group know that a particular combination of feats, spells, and so on will not be allowed again. In this situation the DM knew ahead of time that training is required, and if the game has not yet taken place, then he should inform the player as a courtesy that new rules are in place. I agree that there are a lot of things that the DM should do (and I, too, have a document that I hand out/e-mail to players before every campaign or when a new player joins the group). But, not every DM does. Sometimes they really are bad DM's. Sometimes they just forget. As for this situation I agree that the DM knew ahead of time. I think, though, that it slipped his mind for a while and he was left having to play catch up with his own game.
Lord Karsus 01-03-08, 08:10 PM	As for this situation I agree that the DM knew ahead of time. I think, though, that it slipped his mind for a while and he was left having to play catch up with his own game. -Truthfully, no, I didn't. Never gave much thought at all to PrCs. Then, when the player mentioned it, I later opened the books, saying to myself, "Lets see here, what exactly does this do..."
weasel0 01-03-08, 09:06 PM	Sadly, the "ask the DM at the beginning" doesn't always work. My group let one guy pick up the reigns(he really does create very absorbing stories with us-though does tend to be very railroad heavy to get them started... he's getting better) and we asked about house rules. He even had a pre-printed sheet of house rules that he uses. However, he apparently forgot some of them. Like you don't immediatly level at exp # XXXX. You have to go rest first. (Which I might point out is extremely realistic. I've seen the scientific research on sleeping and it's relation to sleep.) Now we balked at it of course, but in the end, it wound up being a joke: "Well you should have asked if this was a house rule that I fogot to write down!" Also- Batman is obviously an already high lv hero. He's still got this huge training gym for whenever no one is pestering the city. Also, he trained in the orient to become as good as he is..... He's an awesome ranger. Now Lamont Cranston (the Shadow), he trained in the orient too. Shadow Dancer.... but he can actually go invisible.
Mock26 01-03-08, 09:12 PM	Sadly, the "ask the DM at the beginning" doesn't always work. My group let one guy pick up the reigns(he really does create very absorbing stories with us-though does tend to be very railroad heavy to get them started... he's getting better) and we asked about house rules. He even had a pre-printed sheet of house rules that he uses. However, he apparently forgot some of them. Like you don't immediatly level at exp # XXXX. You have to go rest first. (Which I might point out is extremely realistic. I've seen the scientific research on sleeping and it's relation to sleep.) Now we balked at it of course, but in the end, it wound up being a joke: "Well you should have asked if this was a house rule that I fogot to write down!" Also- Batman is obviously an already high lv hero. He's still got this huge training gym for whenever no one is pestering the city. Also, he trained in the orient to become as good as he is..... He's an awesome ranger. Now Lamont Cranston (the Shadow), he trained in the orient too. Shadow Dancer.... but he can actually go invisible. I agree, asking the DM doesn't always work. Then again, the DM going over houserules before doesn't always work. Anything can happen so that anything doesn't always work. After all, we're all human and no one is perfect. But, I honestly believe that if the DM and the players both try to be proactive about this (and other things) it reduces the chances of something going wrong.
danielinthewolvesden 01-03-08, 09:25 PM	Explain to me how someone who had never seen some exotic weapon could suddenly just pick one up and be an expert in its use. I find it interesting, though, that the people who wrote the DMG would have included anything at all about training if it was just a crock. Did they forget to consult you when they wrote the book? 1. I am an authorized SCA heavy weapons fighter and have done exactly that. 2. Cite, page #? 3.No, they stopped consulting me around 1st Ed.
Mock26 01-03-08, 09:28 PM	1. I am an authorized SCA heavy weapons fighter and have done exactly that. You're saying that you can pick up any weapon and are suddenly an expert in its use?
Ikyotojin 01-03-08, 09:53 PM	I'm an old SCA fighter and a marshal since Pensic IX. I don't care what you think you are when you pick up a weapon for the first time - you aren't an expert untill you use it in the lists and prove that you can use it effectively. That's why we have qualifications and marshals. And please don't assume that SCA fighting is anything like real combat. The rules of the list mean that you can't slam into someone to try and knock them to the ground pull their shield from the off side to turn their open side to you and stab them in the kidneys. In a D&D setting I'd be puling out all the stops - chivalry be damned. ;) The only thing the SCA ever taught me about D&D s that armour doesn't stop you from getting hit, it just stops you from getting injured. Shields are used to block and are far more effective than D&D makes them out to be. Elf ears at SCA events are an effective way to say "I'm have no idea what history means"... People who don't train to do something are not experts. Try it. Try hoping onto a horse without learning to ride and fire a bow at full gallop. Try climbing a rope with just your hands. I don't see why a character in a game should be able to do something without having someone to teach them or without taking massive amounts of "down time" to practice a skill.
danielinthewolvesden 01-03-08, 10:08 PM	You're saying that you can pick up any weapon and are suddenly an expert in its use? No, but I can figure out which is the pointy end. An expert? As in Weapon Focus and Specialization? Hardly. But as proficient as any regular fighter who usually uses a longsword and finds himself with a battleaxe? Certainly. In fact, I did just that in a war scenario. First West/Caid war. Ikyotojin Only AS XV? :eek: Pah, Newbie.:P (Authorized and Marshal AS X myself, heck they still had freon helms back then!)
Nid_Food 01-04-08, 08:28 AM	So, you're saying that DM's have to be perfect, that before a campaign they should have thought of every single possible thing that could possibly turn up in a campaign? That's a crock of dragon dung. DM's are human. They make mistakes. Even if the player brought it up at the beginning of the campaign it is possible, for whatever reason, that it slipped the DM's mind until a later point of time. Like I said, he's human. He made some mistakes. I don't think that that is reason enough to crucify him. Nobodies perfect, but the OP asked if he was being an ass for not telling his gaming group that he made a rules change. The situation can be easily fixed, there have been a number of suggestions in this thread on how to fix it. What remains to be seen is if the OP does indeed fix it, or continues to act like a jerk to the player in their game. Seriously, if you forgot to hand out houserules at the beginning of your game, and none of your players thought to ask you about them, wouldn't you hand out the house rules as soon as you remembered? I sure would. The OP knew for a number of sessions he'd made a house rule, but still hasn't told his group. That's a crappy DM in my book. Seriously, if he had a paladin in his group, I'm sure summoning a horse out of thin air would require training just like jumping into a shadow, yet it sounds like he'd be happy to let the paladin pick that little trick up along the way, since a paladin isn't a PrC.
Nid_Food 01-04-08, 08:31 AM	-Truthfully, no, I didn't. Never gave much thought at all to PrCs. Then, when the player mentioned it, I later opened the books, saying to myself, "Lets see here, what exactly does this do..." Then it's your job to immediatally inform the PC that you changed part of the requirements to a class that they're interested in taking.
Lemurion 01-04-08, 10:46 AM	I guess I'm old-fashioned, but to me it's the "poof, you can take any class you want whenever you want" that would be a house rule rather than training for a new class. I have no problem with the idea that you need to be trained to become something special like a shadowdancer. I also think that because prestige classes are special that the best way to handle them is to not tell people exactly what they need to do to actually enter the class until it comes up. The only time I'd really worry about changes like that would be if the feats or other such prerequisites were changed. Just saying it needs training is simply an opportunity to RP and make the game richer.
Hsien 01-04-08, 11:19 AM	My group goes by the DMG 176 for Prestige Classes ~PrC are an optional rule and under the strict purview of the DM. Can't qoute it but thats close iirc. That being said...imo it's the DM's responsibility to let the player know if there are any additional requirements/limitations when multi-classing, whether to base classes or PrC, but it is also the player's responsibility to make sure the DM is aware of planned multi-classing when going outside of current classes. Because sometimes, for my groups sanity we like to rationalize development and changes, otherwise we run into the below example. Lvl 2 Wizard " I studied/apprenticed for years to Master the Arcane arts." Lvl1 Fighter/1 Wiz "Really? I just decided to do that stuff yesterday. Oh look Dancing Lights!!!....pretty." :mage: If the campaign had no previously set limitations on multi-classing, then penalizing the player, because it does not fit into the "Secret Organization" training concept, is bad decision imo.
kelvinaw273 01-04-08, 11:52 AM	Being the DM, you are allowed to make stuff up as you like, but I still say you are being a dick by introducing pre-requisites for a PrC that are not there. The DMG explicitly states that PrCs are AT THE DM's DISCRETION. He can make up whatever requirements he likes. ... although he should have at least explained this OOC to the character, not just sat back and dropped hints.
concerro 01-04-08, 02:22 PM	I guess I'm old-fashioned, but to me it's the "poof, you can take any class you want whenever you want" that would be a house rule rather than training for a new class. I have no problem with the idea that you need to be trained to become something special like a shadowdancer. I also think that because prestige classes are special that the best way to handle them is to not tell people exactly what they need to do to actually enter the class until it comes up. The only time I'd really worry about changes like that would be if the feats or other such prerequisites were changed. Just saying it needs training is simply an opportunity to RP and make the game richer. People know what they have to do be certain things in real life. They just don't find that after 10 years of medical school they are suddenly a doctor, and I know D&D is not real life, but the training aspect is supposed to simulate the fact that in order to do something there is some attempt to learn how to do it. It is pretty hard to learn how to do something if you have no idea what to practice/learn.
Lemurion 01-04-08, 03:46 PM	People know what they have to do be certain things in real life. They just don't find that after 10 years of medical school they are suddenly a doctor, and I know D&D is not real life, but the training aspect is supposed to simulate the fact that in order to do something there is some attempt to learn how to do it. It is pretty hard to learn how to do something if you have no idea what to practice/learn. I think you misunderstood me, the point I was getting at is that until the character starts investigating how to become a Shadowdancer they won't know. The player may know what the requirements are so far as level and feats are concerned, but what the character has to do to enter the class isn't something that's going to be general knowledge. Once they start looking, then they find out that they need training, or group membership or whatever. Not putting the training requirement in at character creation isn't a big deal. The books don't override the DM, that's Rule Zero.
ravenshrike 01-04-08, 04:33 PM	I think you misunderstood me, the point I was getting at is that until the character starts investigating how to become a Shadowdancer they won't know. The player may know what the requirements are so far as level and feats are concerned, but what the character has to do to enter the class isn't something that's going to be general knowledge. Once they start looking, then they find out that they need training, or group membership or whatever. Not putting the training requirement in at character creation isn't a big deal. The books don't override the DM, that's Rule Zero. Nobody said they did, but the DM is still an ass for not letting his player know of additional requirements that were added after the game started OoC. As for being a shadowdancer, one day whilst studying shadows in order to understand how to hide better, he notices that he can manipulate shadowstuff and pull it around himself. Progression continues from there.
sblaxman 01-04-08, 05:00 PM	In the real world "doctor" situation....a person would know that they need to have certain prereqs (med school) to be a doctor. In game, if the DM is saying that PrCs need training, it should be assumed that the characters would have SOME idea that training would be required, stories of some special schools/facilities/dojos/masters that help prospective whatevers become PrCs. They may not know the SPECIFICS of the training (xx hours of practice, yy sucessful exams, zz tests). Those things may be trade secrets or just not known to the general public in game Now, I won't name call him an ass, but I'd say it was definatly not cool to drop it on a specific PrC/Player post-hoc
Ikyotojin 01-04-08, 06:39 PM	No, but I can figure out which is the pointy end. An expert? As in Weapon Focus and Specialization? Hardly. But as proficient as any regular fighter who usually uses a longsword and finds himself with a battleaxe? Certainly. In fact, I did just that in a war scenario. First West/Caid war. Ikyotojin Only AS XV? :eek: Pah, Newbie.:P (Authorized and Marshal AS X myself, heck they still had freon helms back then!) Yup - yer a bucket head. I said "IX" as in the last single digit. There were still mundanes on site! Famous quotes from then "No... We're not a cult, but virgins willing to be sacrificed are always welcome!" "Uhm, up here spunky. You're talking to my bodice lacing and even it thinks you're boring."
Kradlo 01-05-08, 12:40 PM	-I have a played, who in the past, made it known that he was going to become a Shadowdancer as soon as he met the requirements, as an offhand comment. Always remember that Prestige Classes are optional. It's your game, you can decide which Prestige Classes are or are not available to PCs. -I'm going to require this PC to undergo "Shadowdancer training". I have already introduced a NPC that is a Shadowdancer, and loosely works with the PCs, as they belong to the same secret soceity, and run into each other every so often. Even though the requirements for Shadowdancer don't say anything about training, in my mind, there needs to be some kind of training to justify being able to perform some of these supernatural feats. I'm an old school GM, and have no problem with requiring training to learn a new class, particularly a prestige class. It's your campaign, you decide. -Now, if the PC does not accept, that's two offers he's turned down- one blatent, one not so blatent. If he makes it to the level he needs to be able to become a Shadowdancer, I am going to deny him (at least, until he can get training). Am I justified, do you think, or am I being a :censored:? -I haven't talked to him out-of-character, since I abhor that. I don't like doing that kind of stuff. I, personally, think it cheapens the game. To be fair, you should let the player know that the only way to gain a prestige class will be by invitation from the organization and training. Prestige classes generally represent elite organizations, and they may choose or reject whom they please. If the players understand this, they may better adapt their play with the intent to impress the leaders of said organizations. If a PC rogue wants to join the Sky Thieves, for example, he would have to show that he has the "right stuff" for them.