Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Vecna, lord of secrets 01-26-05, 05:15 PM	My new group and I all played under an extremely nice Dm. his rules race: any book, no lvl adj. so that +8 mindflayer suffers no ill effects over that elf. none at all classes: any no multiclass penalties any print, any made up no matter what the balance level or campaign logic stats: 5d6 drop the lost, reroll ones do this 9 times to put this in prespective an 18 was considered weak, before racial abilties prestige classes: any, no test, gained at any time revival magic: whenever wherever now I am taking over thier group My rules race: base 6, no half-orcs they don't make sense classes: players hand book, only strict multiclassing rules stats 1) 4d6-lowest dice, put in the order you roll them, switch two 2) 22 point buy groups choice prestige: several forbidden (shifter, Ijutsu master, etc.) Test required, often deadly revival magic: not plentiful, hard to come by, only in towns or with a cleric Now most of my group hates me now, I am friends with all these people, and I don't know. All my players expect me to hand them power, and let them be unique at level 1, I feel that uniqueness is something you earn, and should not be handed to you. I want to keep this group, a D&D group is next to impossible find in my area, especially since I am not to old, so people just write me off as a bad DM. So my question is should I just cavve in let them be over powered and walk through the campaign I designed as an epic story, or do I stand ground and have most of the player hate me Please I really need help
clarkvalentine 01-26-05, 05:20 PM	If you have good setting reasons why you're forbidding many of the things you're forbidding, you're on OK ground. The only big stumbling block for me would be the "Order you roll them". I really think you should let players arrange rolled attributes as they see fit - that way they can effectively play the classes they want to play. Remember, it's the players' game too. I'd suggest talking with them, don't try to be iron-fisted. Be prepared to give a little in exchange for them giving a little. It might take both sides a bit of getting used to. It's supposed to be fun.
Eightbitmage 01-26-05, 05:26 PM	The problem is that your old DM paid no regard to the rules at all, while at the other end you are not only obeying all the rules, you added some of the optional rules in that make it harder. I suggest: Let players put their stats where they want. Instead of 22 pt buy, bump it to 26-30 Outside of that i wouldnt change much else in your rules... I say when in doubt go with the core rules, and don't make anything harder on the players than that. Also remember, this is a game... as in for fun... as in, the more difficult rules you put out there, the harder it is on the players the less fun they may have. And honestly, if your players want much less strict rules, by all means give those to them, but just try to stay within the realms of sanity. (unlike your old DM) P.S. Why dont half orcs make sense? Human gets raped by orc, human has baby, not much reason that couldnt happen.
Vecna, lord of secrets 01-26-05, 05:41 PM	P.S. Why dont half orcs make sense? Human gets raped by orc, human has baby, not much reason that couldnt happen. they exist but they are social outcasts. I run the forgotten realms and polite society never really warmed up to the orcs, so yes they exist but they are not welcome any where, and many adventuring parties would have no qualms in killing not only the half-orc, but all associted with him.
SoulLord 01-26-05, 06:01 PM	It seems to me that to the players being powerful from the begining and more so as time goes on is very fun. perhaps you can alter their options more as a challenge how about this an all dwarven campaign set in the underdark or an all gnome campaign in the eberron setting SoulLord
The_Cheat137 01-26-05, 06:02 PM	race: base 6, no half-orcs they don't make sense Now if I was gonna do this, I would want to have a DARN good reason why my campaign setting would outlaw half-orcs as a PC race, especially if a player comes up with a really good Half-Orc character. I''ve outlawed elves as a race in my campaign setting, and it deals with one of the central themes of the campaign so the PCs dont mind much. prestige: several forbidden (shifter, Ijutsu master, etc.) Test required, often deadly This is mostly a good idea; all PrCs should be up to the DMs discretion I believe, especially ones which don't really fit into your setting well. Making them 'often deadly'....i don't know about that. It sounds good to make them have a definite danger of death, but to make it 'often deadly' makes it sound like you're saying to your PCs "I don't want you to have anything really good, so you'll probably die if you try it". Your decision on revival magic is all a decision on the setting of your campaign; i personally like it, i run a game now where revival magic is almost unheard of. I think the biggest problem is that it seems like you're telling all your PCs: "This is how it's gonna be here, cause I say so, no questions from you" in so many words.... I would try to explain your decisions in light of how the world is set and created; using that you can get away with almost anything if you back it up with an 'in-character' reason :P
Stuntman 01-26-05, 06:06 PM	I can understand your players' reaction because of how generous their last DM was. Personally, the only issue I would have is with the way you generate the stats. It is rather restrictive and makes it difficult for players to build a character they would want to play. The point buy option does remedy this somewhat, but this is the first time I've heard of a DM using anything less than 25 points. Is there any particular reason why you decide to make the generating of ability scores more restrictive than the standard 4d6 or standard point buy methods? As for the rest of the items: race: base 6, no half-orcs OK if it fits your campaign setting. classes: players hand book, only strict multiclassing rules OK. prestige: several forbidden (shifter, Ijutsu master, etc.) Test required, often deadly I have no problem with forbidding PrC's or requiring a test. I don't see why the test must often be deadly. I can't see why a test for becoming an Arcane Archer, Loremaster or Mystic Theurge must be deadly. It just doesn't make sense to me. I can see it for some PrC's like an Assassin. revival magic: not plentiful, hard to come by, only in towns or with a cleric I like this. I personally feel that plentiful revival magic (raise dead) makes the game too much like a computer game where your guys just respawn after dying.
Razoreface 01-26-05, 06:19 PM	Shell shock. Most of your rules are okay. The order rolled for stats is something that went out in AD&D, and the point buy is slightly below standard. Picking the default array; 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, is 25 points. Your former DM's rules bordered on retardation. I can say that having come from a group that did a lot of that stuff, except for ignoring LA's. When I ran a game for them, I had numerous complaints about 42 point buy being far too low to have a decent character. (not even a good character.. a decent one) What you're doing is the equivalent of someone taking his 911 in for service and getting a Tercel for a loaner. And I'll tell you what.. even if they give in and go with your rules, they're probably going to get killed quickly. They're going to stomp on that 911's gas pedal in the face of a major enemy, and that Tercel's 1.6 liter is going to be the engine that responds. They'll probabl fall flat because they're used to a truly incredible power level.
Bane 01-26-05, 06:27 PM	Try to not switch between extremes. I realize that you are following the core rules, but your players aren't used to that. I would suggest going a little bit higher, maybe 75 free point buy. This way, they still have customization, they can still have cool stuff, but you're not running the DBZ campaign setting.
murte 01-26-05, 06:43 PM	I usually present the players with a list of allowed races, classes, prestige classes, equpiment, and spells. (OK so the last two are usually not allowed lists). Along with that is a sheet with any "house rules" the campaign will be using. Most of the "house rules" are the same ones we always use, or one we saw somewhere and want to "give a go". If players wish to create a PrC, I will work with them given they have a backstory. For many "theme" ideas, I rather like to stress multiclassing as an option. For the difference in play-style you are bringing up, I"d suggest try to present it to them as a different kind of challenge. Ensure that the encounters will be relatively as hard (or easy) as before, and that you will do your best to offer them challenges which will benefit them both in game as well as metagame (aka level up). Worst comes to worst, ask them to give your way a go for a month, and if they still don't like it, either you;ll change or somebody else can try.
e-z0r 01-26-05, 07:32 PM	My rules race: base 6, no half-orcs they don't make sense classes: players hand book, only strict multiclassing rules stats 1) 4d6-lowest dice, put in the order you roll them, switch two 2) 22 point buy groups choice prestige: several forbidden (shifter, Ijutsu master, etc.) Test required, often deadly revival magic: not plentiful, hard to come by, only in towns or with a cleric Well, I'll submit my view: Don't ban half-orcs. A player's character doesn't have to be socially accepted. If you are planning on making half-orcs really hated, to the point where they aren't let into any towns at all or are shot on sight, then yeah, ban them. But why would you make them that hated? There's no reason. Don't be a slave to your campaign world - it is YOUR campaign after all. Only PHB classes I can understand. I don't know what you mean by strict multiclassing rules, but if that just means the 20% XP penalty when the rules say so, then I agree with you. If you intend to be stricter than the rules, I don't agree with you unless you have good arguments to base it off on. The nicest benefit about humans and halfelves is the Any favored class. I don't like hte 4d6 drop lowest arrange as rolled. Do it the normal way, 4d6 drop lowest arrange as you wish. 22 point buy is way too little. Have you actually tried to make a character with that kind of stats? Getting one stat up to 16 costs 10 points. How would you like your PC to have 10,16,16,8,8,8? You can't possibly make a functional monk or paladin with stats like that. If I were a player in your campaign it'd be about 80% sure I'd be playing a druid. There's a reason why 25 point buy is labeled "standard" point buy, and is used by the RPGA. Personally, and I think many people here think the same, I'd give my players some 28 or even 30 PB, since the dierolls often end up being at around that level. Prestige classes.. Ban the ones that haven't got a basis in your campaign. For example, the Iaijutsu master from Oriental. If your campaign doesn't have the Orient, then I guess there won't be any Iaijutsu either. You can also ban broken classes. I would accept the "max 2 prestige classes" rule or even only one prestige class. I don't agree with joining tests however, unless the class requests it. Like joining an assassin's guild or whatever. If the class is something that you don't have to belong to an organization for, then don't require a test. I agree about revival magic.
scott644 01-26-05, 07:36 PM	I will say only one unconditional on this: get rid of the point-buy and allow the players to place their rolls wherever they want. Some folks simply can NOT play certain characters (I'm one such - give me a spellcaster and I'll shine, but give me a fighter/rogue type and I'll be rerolling within three sessions once it's a corpse), but having all your stats locked in they'll be FORCED to either play whatever the dice tell them or a gimped version of what they want. Even with the swap, odds are high they still won't have what they need. You're basically throwing their fate to the winds with the locked rolls. There is a basic principal in the game about chance; the more you reduce chance, the more you favor the characters. Conversely, the more you put them in the hands of chance, the more you burn them. Effectively, you've removed not only the power-game aspects they were spoiled on (I would *never* play such a game - wow!), but any chance of choosing their own destiny whatsoever - from the outset. Adding the low point-buy only adds insult to injury. It forces the players to take at best moderate stats or one good and several of bad stats to compensate. They have to suffer through when this happens - essentially, it punishes them for opting to have any control over their character's fate at all. Control is an extremely touchy subject with most people; they NEED some degree of control in their lives. Removing it even from their fantasy lives is quite brutal.
Saurenda 01-26-05, 07:53 PM	All my players expect me to hand them power, and let them be unique at level 1, I feel that uniqueness is something you earn, and should not be handed to you. I want to keep this group, a D&D group is next to impossible find in my area, especially since I am not to old, so people just write me off as a bad DM. So my question is should I just cavve in let them be over powered and walk through the campaign I designed as an epic story, or do I stand ground and have most of the player hate me Please I really need help Sounds like a time to compromise a little. I would think allowing people to choose the order of thier stats; allocate them as they like. I understand only too well about being limited on people guy. The thing to remember is to give the players what they want within reason, such as qith the uniqueness situation you have. Allow them to have some degree of uniqueness at level 1, however not the kind that breaks the story line, or give them a powerful item. I am unfortunately like the first type of Dm, or was for an extenet of my beginning career. The thing that most players lov eis letting them have freedom to build thier character and have one special thing that the others do not have. Again do not resort to item giving. Have it be something that cannot be stolen and is a part of who they are, such as special training by a now retired master, or even a blood line (not the feat or levels in) to a family of nobles or hero. Of course they would be considered a poor relation and part of thier reason for adventuring would be to increase thier renoun or distance themselves from thier doubting family. Having them survive a disaster at a young age, when thier character was growing up. An entire ship at sea slayed execpt for them. A strange feeling in thier guts every time they see a mountain, or hold a holy symbol. The little things are truly influencial to thier experience. Being subtle and controlling such base elementas will increase thier enjoyment of the game, and how they see the cmapagin world. Having that one special thing that guides them from level one can shape thier careers as adventurers. Just my two cents though, I'm only a Dm of a years experience ^^ Also you might wanna drop the ban on half orcs. Again if you feel it necessary that fine, but you are banning core material. If you get an orc barbarian that attack party members, have the town guard kill it. No need to dirty the hands of the Pcs. Explain to the people out of character what happened with previous players. You aren't the only one that needs to bend a little, if you show the players you are willing they will bend a little too. If you give them too much they'll come to expect it all the time and ruin your fun. Leave them with a sense of mystery toward's thier unqiue feelings about things, and it makes the game a bit mroe real and enjoyable. Having initiations for PrCs is great! Having them be deadly for fighter types seems logical. For some others like those listed in unearthed arcana, most are not desgined to be leatheal though. Special ones like the master class seems plausable.
eRaz0r 01-26-05, 08:03 PM	To me it sounds like you're over-reacting to the idiocy of the last game. You don't *have* to smack everyone around because the last DM was a moron. While I don't have a problem with any of your rules, per se, I think your stat generation system is a problem. Either you chance good stats, but are deprived of the choice of playing the style of character you want, or you get to play the style, but with a lower average score. It might be fun for a few sessions, but I'd despise being stuck behind the power curve (so that equivalent CR's for the party will always be tougher than average for people of our level). And this *on top* of coming from a super-powered game. No, I'd push for at least 25 point-buy, elite array or 4d6 drop lowest and arrange to taste. Everyone's entitled to have some fun, right ? Everything else sounds like good campaign-justified rules. But don't expect your players to love you for it after coming out of playing Godling as if they were just average.
Andrew_980 01-26-05, 09:07 PM	just pick the books you are using and slap them on the table in front of your players and tell them to make characters AS THE RULES SAY and if they complain tell them they can dm, and to grow up
Arcen 01-26-05, 10:14 PM	Um you say you use FR but if you look in the Campaign book there are plenty of towns that list Half-Orcs being part of the population. Doesn't matter if they are really wanted or not there still living there.
Draco Strang 01-26-05, 10:22 PM	Why dont half orcs make sense? Human gets raped by orc, human has baby, not much reason that couldnt happen. Or the orcs could be raped by the humans....... Sorry, was hearkening back to that song "Alice's Restaurant" by Arlow Guthrie. The part about sitting on the bench with the murders and the father-rapers. It has ya in stitches..... :D Actually, no I don't think that you are being too hard. I hate it when DM's let you have a 33 constitution and be a half-tarrasque half-dwarf half-drow mind flayer/lizardfolk halfing hybrid. It's just frickin ridiculous. Do you realize that not everything is not biologically compatable? Keep doing what you're doing, save for your stat rules.
Shard of Suzail 01-26-05, 10:40 PM	By the gods, dont have a point buy that low. 25 is hard enough to cope with. I use point buy myself, lovely as it is, but at 22, you may as well have a party full of aged one legged nerf herders.
aaron3579 01-26-05, 10:45 PM	just pick the books you are using and slap them on the table in front of your players and tell them to make characters AS THE RULES SAY and if they complain tell them they can dm, and to grow up This is the first time I agree with this fellow, and it is a good thing. :) The relationship between a DM and his players is not a democratic one. In your world, you are king. Now, having said that, I will admit that with the power of a monarch comes the temptation of tyranny. And at the end of the day, it is a DMs job to help make the game fun. But I see no problem with your conservative style, in fact I commend you for refusing to bow to this Diablo II mentality that your group seems to subscribe to (bigger numbers = more fun). Now, you say that these people are your friends, and yet you fear that they will 'hate you' over D&D rules. Which is it, because it can't be both... Lastly, if half orcs don't fit into your world, don't let anyone bully you into thinking that they should. You are the man: it's your world regardless if you are using a pre-fab or not, and what you say goes. Now show me your war-face! [incoherent screaming ensues]
Chosen of the Dark Sun 01-26-05, 11:04 PM	First of all, your former DM was a moron. A fool! Power-gamer! And from the sound of it, hadn't even thought of what the hell the word balance means! Alright, next, I agree with what other people have said about not limiting ability rolls. It doesn't allow for any kind of character developement. I play FR, and although they are shunned, half-orcs are still a part of most societies. It makes perfect sense to have one as a party tank (I've even seen half-orc wizards before :eek: ). Not all half-orcs are evil. What about the childish and stupid half-orc barbarian who loves puppies, kittens, and little children, but goes into a blood frenzy if somone insults his momma? Next, if your Dm is a good frien of yours when his b-day comes around, get him a copy of the DMG and not-so-subtly suggest that he read it cover to cover. I mean, your previous games must have been stupid as hell in FR, since you have a party of mind-flayers with no LA running around just beccause the DM decides "Aw shucks, the Tarrasque isn't that more powerful than a human, so why not make it a PC race? It doesn't even deserve a level adjustment!" If I was in a group like yours, I would have quit long ago.
Shard of Suzail 01-26-05, 11:05 PM	A dm isnt really like a king. After all, your players can just walk off if they dont like the game you offer. Players have a lot of power and you only rule with their approval. All you need is someone else capable of running a game to be available and your kingly powers can be democratically removed...along with you.
aaron3579 01-26-05, 11:09 PM	A dm isnt really like a king. After all, your players can just walk off if they dont like the game you offer. Players have a lot of power and you only rule with their approval. All you need is someone else capable of running a game to be available and your kingly powers can be democratically removed...along with you. :rofl: :rofl: In my world, I am the king. I am the master. I am the dungeon MASTER. If they wish to suffer self-imposed exile, that is their choice; I answer to no one. But I wouldn't want them to leave, so I'm not a tryant. :D
Habronicus 01-27-05, 12:26 AM	I'll bite. First of all, I don't really like how lenient your previous GM was. However, I can't see how anyone could have fun with the rules you came up either. Here are my opinions: race: base 6, no half-orcs they don't make sense You know, I'm taking this rule almost as a personal insult. You, along with some other posters in this thread, are making it sound like half-orcs are ALWAYS the product of rape! Is that all your imaginations can come up with?? When the WizOs here on these boards made the UnCon in 2003 (IIRC), I made a female Half-Orc Barbarian who was born out of a real love relationship. I got VERY positive comments and I remember one person saying it was the first time they saw a half-orc background which wasn't based on rape, and was believable at the same time. Since then, I've been playing many half-orc characters and I have yet to recur to "rape" for their background. That said, if you can find a good reason why they are not allowed, then fine, but if you can't, then that hints at a certain inability from the GM in handling the race in the first place. classes: players hand book, only strict multiclassing rules Nothing too bad here, although allowing to multiclass without penalty is not that big a deal either, and most players I know (those who GM included) prefer to skip those penalties. stats 1) 4d6-lowest dice, put in the order you roll them, switch two 2) 22 point buy groups choice This is your second "insane" rule. Why only 22 points, in Forgotten Realms of all places? In a low-magic campaign, I'd accept it, but that still sounds ridiculously low. And the "keep the order you rolled them" bit, as many pointed out, was booted out of the older editions of the game for a reason. That reason being that it's not the dice that should choose the character we're going to play. Frankly, if I want to play a Wizard, and roll a low Int, am I forced to play it that way? Or should I just choose a class which "matches" my rolls? prestige: several forbidden (shifter, Ijutsu master, etc.) Test required, often deadly Nothing wrong in forbidding PrCs, but what's with the test thing? And why must it be "often deadly"? You expect players to have fun seeing their character die when they're trying to get a level in something even the Core books say it's legit? revival magic: not plentiful, hard to come by, only in towns or with a cleric So, let me get this straight... you're making gameplay a living hell, where PCs risk dying left and right, even when they're just trying to go up a level in a PrC, and they can't even bring their characters back from a mishap (which is bound to happen)? I'm starting to think this post is a joke... to see how people would react to a typical "bad GM". If so, congrats, you even got me going for a moment here. All my players expect me to hand them power, and let them be unique at level 1, I feel that uniqueness is something you earn, and should not be handed to you. This much I agree. However, that's not your problem. If you' were sticking by the Core Rules, you wouldn't be giving them any more power than they deserve. It's your House Rules which make the game less pleasant to the group. So my question is should I just cavve in let them be over powered and walk through the campaign I designed as an epic story, or do I stand ground and have most of the player hate me Why not compromise? Anyway, to answer your topic title, yes, you are being too stict. However, I'm strongly inclined to believe your whole post is a joke, and if it is... yeah, I guess it's kind of funny... I think :thinks:
Nom 01-27-05, 12:53 AM	My new group and I all played under an extremely nice Dm."nice" actually means decent, or (archaicly) precise. Said DM sounds more like carte blanche. Then they get you. I can understand your players' response. "Core rules? Core rules are for wusses - I'll show you underpowered, and you'll like it!" Rather than saying "how about we try 'standard' rules, you're asking them to go from rules that are widely overpowered vs core to rules that are underpowered vs core. race: base 6, no half-orcs they don't make senseI assume "don't make sense" = "don't fit my world". Mechanically, the half-orc is the weakest race by a long way. The +2 Str comes with hefty penalties (which are quite noticeable when playing with standard ability scores), and the only "special" they get is darkvision. stats 1) 4d6-lowest dice, put in the order you roll them, switch two 2) 22 point buy groups choice"By the book is way too generous". From uber-men to half way to commoner (OK, 1/3, but my point is that these are below even normal 'elite' scores, let alone the exaggerated scores your PCs are used to). prestige: several forbidden (shifter, Ijutsu master, etc.) Test required, often deadlyWell, PrCs are always under the DM's purview. Just tell the players "no PrCs to start with; we'll review as we go along". If they complain that if they don't know the class then they can't work towards the pre-requisites, remind them that all PrCs are designed to be customisable, so pre-reqs may not be an issue, but for now to ignore PrCs. Unless of course there are a couple of PrCs which are key to your game world; the PCs should obviously know about them. All my players expect me to hand them power, and let them be unique at level 1, I feel that uniqueness is something you earn, and should not be handed to you. I want to keep this group, a D&D group is next to impossible find in my area, especially since I am not to old, so people just write me off as a bad DM. So my question is should I just cavve in let them be over powered and walk through the campaign I designed as an epic story, or do I stand ground and have most of the player hate meNeither. Suggest instead that they play a 'core rules only' (or core w/ standard point buy) campaign. That's likely to be more palatable than your nerfed version. Beyond that, ask them to try it for a few (4-6) sessions, which will give them time to get a feel for it. You also might want to remind them that these are level 1 characters, and that they need to forget their previous invulnerable mindset and experience the world through young eyes again. It may take a little while for them to appreciate the novelty.
aaron3579 01-27-05, 01:10 AM	Neither. Suggest instead that they play a 'core rules only' (or core w/ standard point buy) campaign. That's likely to be more palatable than your nerfed version. Beyond that, ask them to try it for a few (4-6) sessions, which will give them time to get a feel for it. :confused: The DMs job is to make the game challenging and fun. Why can no one accept the notion that this DM may be capable of making a campaign challenging and fun with a 22 point buy? What is so attractive about bigger numbers? You feel that adventurers should be elite? More heroic than the average Joe? Stats aren't what do it; it’s the character of a hero that makes him a hero. The stat 'bravery' does not exist for a reason. So assume he goes with a higher point-buy than 22. Now it would be his responsibility to bump up the difficulty of the encounters. Why not just save him the trouble? DMing involves making something just hard enough to scare the players without completely wiping them out, whether they can bench-press 200, or 2000 lbs. This is what makes for a good campaign, and it can be achieved at nearly any power level.
e-z0r 01-27-05, 01:12 AM	Oh and if the players whine about the class amount restrictions and keep saying that they can't "make the character they want to be" or that they can't "be unique at 1st level", you just have to tell them: It's not about the levels of the character -- It's the character itself. If you make a unique person with a unique flare and play him/her as such, who cares if you got this class or that class? Try to make them realize that.
e-z0r 01-27-05, 01:14 AM	:confused: The DMs job is to make the game challenging and fun. Why can no one accept the notion that this DM may be capable of making a campaign challenging and fun with a 22 point buy? What is so attractive about bigger numbers? You feel that adventurers should be elite? More heroic than the average Joe? Stats aren't what do it; it’s the character of a hero that makes him a hero. The stat 'bravery' does not exist for a reason. So assume he goes with a higher point-buy than 22. Now it would be his responsibility to bump up the difficulty of the encounters. Why not just save him the trouble? DMing involves making something just hard enough to scare the players without completely wiping them out, whether they can bench-press 200, or 2000 lbs. This is what makes for a good campaign, and it can be achieved at nearly any power level. Well, the CR system is based on 4d6 drop lowest arrange at will or 25PB. As such, the DM invites more work for himself. And yes, adventurers should be elite. They're always a step up from the regular soldier's, thieves guilders, wizard academy graduates etcet.
aaron3579 01-27-05, 01:21 AM	Well, the CR system is based on 4d6 drop lowest arrange at will or 25PB. As such, the DM invites more work for himself. And yes, adventurers should be elite. They're always a step up from the regular soldier's, thieves guilders, wizard academy graduates etcet. Refer to my humble opinion concerning the CR system: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=368271 post 24 Also, if you are saying that someone with average stats cannot be considered elite, I'm afraid that we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion. Invites more work for himself? It sounds like he's already planned his campaign based on a 22 point buy. What are you talking about?
Duvanok 01-27-05, 02:01 AM	Your old DM was way too nice, I shudder to think of what that game must have been like. . . Your rules seem to bring some logic and structure back to the game. Although I disagree with a few of your rules. Specifically, that Half-orcs don't "make sense" and I think your character generation rules are way too strict. Point buy, point buy, point buy! It allows the players maximum customization so everyone can be happy playing the character they want to play. Other than those two I would say it looks like a game I would play in and it certainly is a whole hell of a lot better than your old DM. Good Luck
penchant 01-27-05, 03:27 AM	OK, what you really need to do is have a clean break. Change games. There is a D20 Super hero game that they can make ultra powerful characters and do what they want. You have to play to your audience since if they leave your just a nerd playing diablo alone. If you really need to play D&D just write a new setting built for uber characters that have uber monsters and uber villians. Make it an anime game.
Callista 01-27-05, 03:54 AM	my question is should I just cavve in let them be over powered and walk through the campaign I designed as an epic story, or do I stand ground and have most of the player hate me Neither. Vecna... you are going from one extreme to the other!! Your players won't like it, and you'll have less fun for it. Find the golden mean, and you will be much better off. What I suggest is a lenient style of play with the original rules still in effect. Seek the midpoint between their rules and yours, and you should have a decent style of play. race: any book, no lvl adj. so that +8 mindflayer suffers no ill effects over that elf. none at all race: base 6, no half-orcs they don't make senseAllow races from the PHB, whatever campaign books you're using, and maybe the MM if it has a specific section on characters of that race. Limit the level adjustments possible to +1, or at the most +1 and +2. classes: any no multiclass penalties, any print, any made up no matter what the balance level or campaign logic classes: players hand book, only strict multiclassing rules Limit the total number of classes to 3, including prestige classes. PHB and DMG, and maybe whatever campaign books you're using. stats: 5d6 drop the lost, reroll ones do this 9 times to put this in prespective an 18 was considered weak, before racial abiltiesstats 1) 4d6-lowest dice, put in the order you roll them, switch two 2) 22 point buy groups choice Use 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as wanted. If the player doesn't like the result of that, have him use 32 point buy. prestige classes: any, no test, gained at any time prestige: several forbidden (shifter, Ijutsu master, etc.) Test required, often deadly Have the players do a test for those PrCs where that makes sense, especially if the PrC means being part of an organization. Otherwise, if the PrC fits into your campaign, allow it without a test. revival magic: whenever wherever revival magic: not plentiful, hard to come by, only in towns or with a cleric A high-level cleric can provide this. Also provide it in towns over a certain population--say, 5,000 people--with a cleric powerful enough to cast Raise Dead. Always have the PCs pay for it, whether with gold or a quest. All my players expect me to hand them power, and let them be unique at level 1, I feel that uniqueness is something you earn, and should not be handed to you.Uniqueness is something you make for yourself. You can be unique as a level 1 human fighter; or you can be completely plain-vanilla as a level 50 "half-tarrasque half-dwarf half-drow mind flayer/lizardfolk halfing hybrid", as Draco puts it. It's all in the personality--NOT the stats. You can't hand your players uniqueness; they either know how to make their characters memorable, or they don't.
Nom 01-27-05, 07:20 AM	The DMs job is to make the game challenging and fun. Why can no one accept the notion that this DM may be capable of making a campaign challenging and fun with a 22 point buy?Did I deny that? Did anyone deny that? I quote: "Now most of my group hates me now, I am friends with all these people, and I don't know." I analogise: "Motorbikes? Motorbikes are so overpowered. This is supposed to be bicycle racing, so let's all go back to bicycles. Actually, let's go back to little BMX bicycles - learn to get your speed thrill starting small." If you try to take a group of players from "anything goes" to "not even core rules go" without significant consultation, they won't like it. I've never played with Vecna, so have no idea of his skill as a DM, and thus have not commented on it. However, his finesse in this particular social situation is lacking. My point is that if he wants to recalibrate his game, at least "core rules" gives him an authority to appeal to: "this is how the game was balanced and designed". In contrast, weaker than core rules looks like an overreaction. Whether it is or not is irrelevant; in such matters, perception is everything.
Saurenda 01-27-05, 07:49 AM	I've never played with Vecna, so have no idea of his skill as a DM, and thus have not commented on it. However, his finesse in this particular social situation is lacking. Kind of like that time he had his eye and hand cut off by his most trusted Lt. Kas. If we can learn anything from what happened that day it is this: Don't ban core material without good reason. Then again you may not like your eye or hand.
e-z0r 01-27-05, 07:58 AM	Refer to my humble opinion concerning the CR system: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=368271 post 24 Also, if you are saying that someone with average stats cannot be considered elite, I'm afraid that we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion. Invites more work for himself? It sounds like he's already planned his campaign based on a 22 point buy. What are you talking about? Invites more work in the sense that he won't be able to rely on the CR system at all. It DOES quicken things up with random encounters (if you use them) and makes it generally easier to judge how hard something is going to be. A 22PB makes a way substandard character (even a 25PB system brings generally lower stats than a 4d6 drop lowest. It's mostly selected because it's not random, and a rolled character might end up with some really bad stats), and unless the DM is looking for a challenging campaign, I think 25 PB or higher is more suitable.
Talon Blackhart 01-27-05, 09:05 AM	Ok, when it comes to the topic of the thread: No, I don't necessarily think you're being too strict. What I do think is happening is that you're trying to change the rules to quickly and too extremely. Your players have gotten used to having uber-powerful characters, and now you're forcing them to create characters that are way under-powered compared to what they're used to. The best way to address this issue (IMO) is to sit down with the players, explain that you think that the previous campaigns were too "epic" even at low levels, and that you'd like to try something different. Then, negotiate with the players to find a set of rules that are close enough to the core for your preferences, but that are broad enough to allow them to have the kind of characters they want. Now that I've answered the specific question, I'll mention a few other things: I agree that the roll 4d6, drop lowest, put in order of rolling will cuase a lot of unhappiness, as it really does force you to play a specific character. I mean, imagine rolling a 17, 12, 8, 10, 13, 18 and wanting to play a wizard... Even with the switch, you've still got some really useless stats for a mage. Point-buys: These seem to cause a lot of debate. No one can agree on a "good" number of points to allow. I personally don't use them in my campaigns, so I really don't feel like I should say too much here. Racial restrictions: If it makes sense in your world, that's fine. Remember, even if you use a campaign setting you can change things around as you see fit. PrCs: I can understand restricting them. I don't understand (like many on the board) why the tests have to be deadly, however. Just my :twocents:
scott644 01-27-05, 09:45 AM	:confused: The DMs job is to make the game challenging and fun. Why can no one accept the notion that this DM may be capable of making a campaign challenging and fun with a 22 point buy? It's not the low point-buy. It's the manner in which it's presented. The players are forced to choose how they want to cripple their character; either they let total randomness force them into whatever classess are available with those rolls, or they take even lower overall scores in order to decide what they want to be. It's very insulting and, realistically, punative - it's saying, "You're being punished because you want some degree of control over your character." Oh and if the players whine about the class amount restrictions and keep saying that they can't "make the character they want to be" or that they can't "be unique at 1st level", you just have to tell them: It's not about the levels of the character -- It's the character itself. If you make a unique person with a unique flare and play him/her as such, who cares if you got this class or that class? Try to make them realize that. Cool. Play a cleric. You'll NEED strength, dexterity, and constitution all around average at least to survive the combat. You'll NEED a high wisdom for the spells. You'll NEED above average charisma for turning undead. Rolling the dice it's a near-certainty that is NOT going to happen. So you opt for the point buy. OK, go for the high wisdom and charisma, taking the average physical stats, then hope there's enough to still have more than your minimum 1 skill point per level after dumping intelligence. Just rolling 4d6/drop the lowest gives you low odds at having more than a single stat above 14. You will average 12.25 per stat, or 73.5 for all six. It's uncommon to get a single stat that makes playing a PSC viable, and downright rare to get the stats needed for a truly effective paladin or such. Basically, this character creation trap is deigned to force a low-magic party of fighters and rogues - IF they're lucky enough to get even the stats they require for that! What this is coming down to, is which DM's want to strip any self-determination from their players, and which don't.
LordofIllusions 01-27-05, 10:37 AM	Seeing as how the players are pitching a fit simply because you will not allow them to "dominate the game", talking with them will ten-to-one solve "nothing". Our group just got rid of a player that would just complain about EVERYTHING(Or rather he got rid of himself. :clap: ). First it was the 3E system, then it was how expensive the books are(This guy NEVER bought one D&D gaming book. The most he bought was A[as in one] novel.), then it was the point buy system, then it was the LA rules, then it was backgrounds, and the list would have gone on and on if we would have kept inviting him/her to the table and trying to "talk" it out. Now this very same player debates endlessly all over the internet, instigates arguements regularly, and is just overall a miserable person to be around. If your players are ANYTHING like this, can them quick. Sometimes talking is good, sometimes you just need players that are mature. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. ~~~
e-z0r 01-27-05, 02:21 PM	Cool. Play a cleric. You'll NEED strength, dexterity, and constitution all around average at least to survive the combat. You'll NEED a high wisdom for the spells. You'll NEED above average charisma for turning undead. Rolling the dice it's a near-certainty that is NOT going to happen. So you opt for the point buy. OK, go for the high wisdom and charisma, taking the average physical stats, then hope there's enough to still have more than your minimum 1 skill point per level after dumping intelligence. Just rolling 4d6/drop the lowest gives you low odds at having more than a single stat above 14. You will average 12.25 per stat, or 73.5 for all six. It's uncommon to get a single stat that makes playing a PSC viable, and downright rare to get the stats needed for a truly effective paladin or such. Basically, this character creation trap is deigned to force a low-magic party of fighters and rogues - IF they're lucky enough to get even the stats they require for that! I don't understand why you quoted my opinion about multiclassing when you talked about what stats you need for a cleric or what stats you get from rolling dice. Well, to answer your example about the cleric: I'm trying to figure out why you put so much emphasis on the word "need". A cleric doesn't need average physical stats. A cleric doesn't need to go into melee combat at all if he doesn't feel like it. As a PSC, the only thing I'd say a cleric needs is wisdom. INT is second rate. Playing a human, you'll get 2 skill points per level anyway no matter if your int is 3. 2 skill points should be quite enough to get that necessary concentration and another skill of your choice. Charisma is only useful for turning undead. A cleric doesn't need to turn undead, it's just a side feature of his class. A cleric can make do with pretty big deficiencies everywhere except WIS. Sure, he won't be as good as a character with high stats all around, but I think that's a given. A paladin, then again, is a melee character who needs at least a good STR and CON score to be good at what he does. To take advantage of his divine spells, he'll need a bit of wisdom. To take advantage of divine grace, he'll need above average charisma, and so on. Now, you may be able to play a functioning paladin even without divine spells or divine grace bonuses. But in that case, why not just play a fighter? What's different from a cleric is that a cleric's player doesn't really have another choice except for the druid, which is somewhat of a different class with all different abilities and spell lists. Where a paladin with lousy WIS and CHA is basically the same as any fighter, give or take a couple of abilities like detect good and smite evil. 22 point buy gives you under 12 averages AT BEST. 12,12,12,12,12,10 would cost 22 points. If you attempt to have some stats over 14, you get a smaller average, like 16,16,10,8,8,8 averaging at 11. Or 18,14,8,8,8,8 for an average of 10,67.
Shard of Suzail 01-27-05, 02:52 PM	It is worth remembering that not every half orc has an orc parent. You do get communities of half orcs living together or having enough presence in a human settlement that the blood traits stay. Thus, the actual orc ancestry can be very far removed.
scott644 01-27-05, 03:22 PM	Well, to answer your example about the cleric: I'm trying to figure out why you put so much emphasis on the word "need". A cleric doesn't need average physical stats. A cleric doesn't need to go into melee combat at all if he doesn't feel like it. Then that cleric's DM is remiss in their interpretation of the class. The cleric is a second-rank combat class that provides pumping/healing/defensive magic on the side. You just try healing somebody mid-combat with those touch-spells and see how fast you go down if you don't have direct combat presence. As a PSC, the only thing I'd say a cleric needs is wisdom. That's correct. As a PSC. Clerics are NOT PSCs. Clerics are the warrior-priests of their respective faiths, masters/opponents of the undead as well. Oops, there goes the part about only needing wisdom. A cleric doesn't need to turn undead, it's just a side feature of his class. Unless, of course, the DM actually has undead in the game. Considering the undead type is a pretty common one, what are the odds? Anybody playing a cleric will want the charisma. 22 point buy gives you under 12 averages AT BEST. 12,12,12,12,12,10 would cost 22 points. If you attempt to have some stats over 14, you get a smaller average, like 16,16,10,8,8,8 averaging at 11. Or 18,14,8,8,8,8 for an average of 10,67. Exactly - far worse than the 4d6/drop one presents with its average 12.25 per stat for a total of 75.5. PSC's will be almost throw-away characters at this point. All-around characters will be slightly better; fighters, rogues, very weak monks, paladins and rangers. Bards are about the height of spellcasting power, to be honest. So we'll have a low-magic party in a high-magic setting. Bad news. The cleric is just a single example. The game is designed to be balanced with parties of 4 players using elite stats; the situation is designed to get characters designed to fail in such a setting.
Locus 01-27-05, 03:48 PM	I don't concider your rules too strict.. Maybe only the one with no half-orcs. I they should have the chance to play it as long as they have a god and logic reason for it (something they not always have) :P
Jackhammer John 01-27-05, 04:07 PM	I would allow half-orcs, however, do NOT allow half-humans! The blighters!
aaron3579 01-27-05, 05:46 PM	First, I said: The DMs job is to make the game challenging and fun. Why can no one accept the notion that this DM may be capable of making a campaign challenging and fun with a 22 point buy? Then you said: Did I deny that? Did anyone deny that? If you try to take a group of players from "anything goes" to "not even core rules go" without significant consultation, they won't like it. I've never played with Vecna, so have no idea of his skill as a DM, and thus have not commented on it. However, his finesse in this particular social situation is lacking. :rofl: This post is a complete contradiction of itself. Anyone with any level of critical reading skills can clearly see this. Or maybe you just didn't read (or didn't understand) what I said in the first place. [shrugs] At any rate, Invites more work in the sense that he won't be able to rely on the CR system at all. It DOES quicken things up with random encounters (if you use them) and makes it generally easier to judge how hard something is going to be. Who wants to RELY on that piece of crap system anyway? Now tell me honestly, I know you think I'm an ass, but remove your ego from the situation for two seconds and ask yourself: which would be more work, altering an entire campaign world, or altering random encounters? One more monkey to spank, and I'm through being a jerk: It's not the low point-buy. It's the manner in which it's presented. The players are forced to choose how they want to cripple their character; either they let total randomness force them into whatever classess are available with those rolls, or they take even lower overall scores in order to decide what they want to be. It's very insulting and, realistically, punative - it's saying, "You're being punished because you want some degree of control over your character." Average stats are not crippling. Average stats are not punishment. Average stats can be role-playing treasure-troves. I say again: the stat 'bravery' does not exist for a reason. The fact that someone is stronger, faster, smarter, or more charming does not make him a hero. Heroism is wholly contingent upon character, and elitism is based on training. No matter how high or low the point-buy, it is the DMs responsibility to tailor encounters accordingly. The game should be just as challenging to a 40 PB party as to a 20 PB party. Otherwise the DMs performance, in my opinion, is found to be sub-standard.
Sage Nashae 01-27-05, 06:17 PM	By making these rules you are making it more challenging for them, making them think on their feet, which is always a good thing. But maybe banning half-orcs wasn't such a good idea, not that they make sense to me either. Yet, as the DM your rules are what are used. So, if you feel that you are too strict then change them. It isn't our oppinion that matters it's your's.
allenchan 01-27-05, 06:23 PM	Yes, you are being too strict. But on the toher hand, the other dm is just insanely stupid. There -IS- a happy medium. personally I am "everything 3.5 WotC published if you meet the requirements" I know the rules of the game, and I am a better powergamer then people I dm for, so its not like I'm in the dark and affraid of whata pc might bring to the table. People fear what they dont know. I know a dm that is like that when pcs ask if they can use such-and-such book. why? because he only owns the core books. Seriously, folks. But in the end it is a game and itsall about having fun. If you or your players arent having fun something is wrong.
scott644 01-27-05, 06:54 PM	Average stats are not crippling. Average stats are not punishment. Average stats can be role-playing treasure-troves. I say again: the stat 'bravery' does not exist for a reason. The fact that someone is stronger, faster, smarter, or more charming does not make him a hero. Heroism is wholly contingent upon character, and elitism is based on training. No matter how high or low the point-buy, it is the DMs responsibility to tailor encounters accordingly. In this thread, the DM has already failed in his purpose. You see, average stats are NOT crippling. They are NOT punishment. However... Being forced to accept what complete and utter randomness gives you IS crippling when you want a specific character type and the odds are against you. Further... Being forced to take (as your ONLY other option) at BEST average stats to guarantee you can play what you want IS a punishment. Further still... If you have players who opt both ways, it is almost impossible to plan for both as one part of the party is (unhappily) about halfway between average and elite and the other part is (most likely even more unhappily) sub-par. Cater to one side and you overwhelm the other; cater to the other and you bore the first. It's a no-win situation.
e-z0r 01-27-05, 06:55 PM	Then that cleric's DM is remiss in their interpretation of the class. The cleric is a second-rank combat class that provides pumping/healing/defensive magic on the side. You just try healing somebody mid-combat with those touch-spells and see how fast you go down if you don't have direct combat presence. That's correct. As a PSC. Clerics are NOT PSCs. Clerics are the warrior-priests of their respective faiths, masters/opponents of the undead as well. Oops, there goes the part about only needing wisdom. Unless, of course, the DM actually has undead in the game. Considering the undead type is a pretty common one, what are the odds? Anybody playing a cleric will want the charisma. Exactly - far worse than the 4d6/drop one presents with its average 12.25 per stat for a total of 75.5. PSC's will be almost throw-away characters at this point. All-around characters will be slightly better; fighters, rogues, very weak monks, paladins and rangers. Bards are about the height of spellcasting power, to be honest. So we'll have a low-magic party in a high-magic setting. Bad news. The cleric is just a single example. The game is designed to be balanced with parties of 4 players using elite stats; the situation is designed to get characters designed to fail in such a setting. Sigh. Alright, first things first - I'm on the side of upping the PB to higher than 22. The stats you can make with 22 PB are sad and sub-par. The cleric argument, however, simply ****** me off because of the capitalized "need" -words. And I'll keep on arguing about it still: A cleric doesn't NEED a strong combat presence. It's useful, but not needed. You can still play a functional cleric without also being a tank. If you intend to heal the frontliners in the heat of battle, then sure it'll be useful to have good hp and ac, but it's not absolutely necessary. Nor is it absolutely necessary for a cleric to be a can of healing, mind you. Undead can also be hacked to pieces, crushed to pulp, burned, molten, freezed trampled etc. A cleric's turn undead just helps, but it still is, IMO, just a side function of the class. Yes, turn undead is helpful, so if you got lucky with good rolls, why not have a good CHA modifier? Hell, it's useful anyway. Yet, the point stands, it's not necessary for playing a functional cleric. And hey, of course better stats always benefit the character. A cleric will benefit nicely from being able to have that combat staying power, or being able to turn undead well. It still isn't necessary, though.
e-z0r 01-27-05, 07:03 PM	Who wants to RELY on that piece of crap system anyway? Now tell me honestly, I know you think I'm an ass, but remove your ego from the situation for two seconds and ask yourself: which would be more work, altering an entire campaign world, or altering random encounters? I don't think you're an ass, and I'm not hindered by my ego at the moment. I don't actually think anything of you. It may be that we've clashed somewhere else, but I don't lug around opinions about people I've met on the internet. You're an all new person everytime we meet. Therefore: Nice to meet you. :) Now, about using the CR and random encounter system. I don't know why you capitalized the word rely, but I'll point out that I didn't mean anyone should rely on it, or want to rely on it. Nevertheless, it's quite useful in many situations. Now, if the entire campaign world and it's encounters have been designed for 22 PB characters, I don't see any problem with using 22PB. However, it wasn't said that this campaign has been tailored for 22PB. Your point there is irrelevant.
scott644 01-27-05, 07:16 PM	A cleric doesn't NEED a strong combat presence. It's useful, but not needed. You can still play a functional cleric without also being a tank. If you intend to heal the frontliners in the heat of battle, then sure it'll be useful to have good hp and ac, but it's not absolutely necessary. Nor is it absolutely necessary for a cleric to be a can of healing, mind you. Of course not. Evil clerics and negative-channeling neutrals are cans of pain. Using touch spells. In combat. Triggering attacks of opportunity. Oh yeah - without good AC and hit points they are SO dead - and without at least average stats they won't have them. As for not doing the healing or combat? Well, if I wanted a spellcaster to cower in the back and cast pump spells all day long I'd be asking for a sorceror or wizard. Nah - we don't need strength, dexterity, or constitution at all. Undead can also be hacked to pieces, crushed to pulp, burned, molten, freezed trampled etc. A cleric's turn undead just helps, but it still is, IMO, just a side function of the class. Yes, turn undead is helpful, so if you got lucky with good rolls, why not have a good CHA modifier? Hell, it's useful anyway. Yet, the point stands, it's not necessary for playing a functional cleric There's more use to the cleric than just turning undead, although undead should very wisely be turned; it's a sound strategic move to divide one's enemies and take them out in smaller units. Unless, of course, they're suffering penalties there. There's also the divine feats, many of which require expending turn attempts. Toss those out the window unless you intend to burn feats on extra turning, thus cutting into the feats available for those divine feats. Nah - we don't need charisma at all. And that's a SINGLE example. The wizard and sorceror even more desperately need dexterity as a survival trait, although they could dispense with the other four stats in order to afford it. Yeah, I like playing fully gimped spellcasters.
Andrew_980 01-27-05, 07:33 PM	This is the first time I agree with this fellow, and it is a good thing. Dear god, its a sign of the apocalyps. :eek: actually i think we have agree on a couple pionts and seem to see some validity in each other stance on things. :cool: personaly i find the 22 piont buy a little low but thats not the end of the world, especially if the DM take the power level into account, hell not being super beings for once can really be fun.almost any PC can be built with 22 pionts, maybe you cant have everything but you can still make a fun, viable pc. personally i think any piont buy and assigned HP by the die size is a good option because it makes all pc equal, and that is a good thing :D
aaron3579 01-27-05, 11:40 PM	I don't think you're an ass, and I'm not hindered by my ego at the moment. I don't actually think anything of you. It may be that we've clashed somewhere else, but I don't lug around opinions about people I've met on the internet. You're an all new person everytime we meet. Therefore: Nice to meet you. :) Now, about using the CR and random encounter system. I don't know why you capitalized the word rely, but I'll point out that I didn't mean anyone should rely on it, or want to rely on it. Nevertheless, it's quite useful in many situations. Now, if the entire campaign world and it's encounters have been designed for 22 PB characters, I don't see any problem with using 22PB. However, it wasn't said that this campaign has been tailored for 22PB. Your point there is irrelevant. You are correct... maybe. We need to ask the op. The reason I thought this was because: So my question is should I just cavve in let them be over powered and walk through the campaign I designed as an epic story, or do I stand ground and have most of the player hate me [post #1] So, if it turns out that I am not correct in assuming that his campaign is designed for 22 PB, then I will stop being an ass. (I assumed you could tell that I am an ass). :D Nice to meet you too! :)
aaron3579 01-27-05, 11:58 PM	Being forced to take (as your ONLY other option) at BEST average stats to guarantee you can play what you want IS a punishment. No it isn't. :P
ECOM 01-28-05, 01:58 AM	In my opinion you are being to restrictive. race: base 6, no half-orcs they don't make sense This is fine for campain reasons. as a matter of fact limmiting them to one race is fine also if for champain reasons. Your pc would not be happy with it because it is a far shot from where they were playing at . I recoment allowing races from other book as long as they can reasonably interact with the population areas they will encounter but they must use LA rules. classes: players hand book, only strict multiclassing rules Again sounds like a campain reason even though your players are use to others. mabey allow some other classes from the other books (your choise) stats 1) 4d6-lowest dice, put in the order you roll them, switch two 2) 22 point buy groups choice I think you are really limiting them here and i think this is over kill and probably your players biggest gripe. if they are use to the higher level of play they are going to be upset. if you are going to insist on static roll they give them 5d6 drop 2 in order switch two they will find more playable charicters or just drop the place in order bit. prestige: several forbidden (shifter, Ijutsu master, etc.) Test required, often deadly Test yes but i dont think deadly is right. dificult but they should be able to pass the test by taking 10 if they meet or exceed all the requierment revival magic: not plentiful, hard to come by, only in towns or with a cleric sounds like a low level game which is fine but i think you are going to find more charicter death because they are use to having revival. I sucspect that you are going to have a lot ok charicter death untill someone relents or your group is going to fall apart. i think you need to talk to your player and reach a compramise.
SiruisBlack 01-28-05, 08:57 AM	I say just do it and then when the players go elswhere, you can start learning to DM correctly. A previous poster said something about this being a game, NOT a power trip. You are going from one extreme to another. Just as the first DM was too lenient you are trying to be to constrictive. If it isn't fun then people will not play or will play elsewhere. I swear, there are some people on these boards that lose touch with what D&D should be all about, FUN. If someone wants to build a character that is optimized for damage or optimized for role play, then it is fun for that player. Make it fun and everyone will keep playing.
scott644 01-28-05, 09:14 AM	No it isn't. :P Keep lying to yourself. Read the original post and follow-ups again. It's got all the call-signs of control issues and the urgent need to punish those who don't agree to fit a certain mold. In other words, interpreting having any choice in your character as having too much power, thus being punished with significantly less power as a result if you shoose it. I say just do it and then when the players go elswhere, you can start learning to DM correctly. I hope he learns before then, because I'll wager he's only going to drive people away from playing altogether if they get a really sour taste in their mouths about "core" or "fair" DMing. A previous poster said something about this being a game, NOT a power trip. More than one of us actually. Because, that's what it's coming out to be. Whether he realises it or not, he's had a bad experience with frustration over everybody getting too much power and not being reined in, so he's cutting loose on them over the prior DM's failings. I'd bet he'll continue to go with this abusive startup, and was actually using this as a means to get justification by having even one person agree. That's how it works after all; you listen to what you want and ignore the rest when you're being guided by this kind of problem. Or am I incorrect and has our DM settled down and decided to run a sensible game by allowing the players some real choice in what to do with their characters?
screwtape 01-28-05, 09:42 AM	"Your former DM's rules bordered on retardation." Bordered? The rules are not too strict. The only thing I would change would be to let them arrange the stats however they want. 4d6 is perfectly fine for stat generation. It is one of the methods suggested in the core rules, so you will not have to worry about adjusting encounters. You just have to present this new concept to your friends differently. You have to be persuasive. Explain it as a something different to try, not as punishment. “This way sounds fun to me. We did it your way for a while, can we just try this?” Your group is a pack of slavering munchkins. It is up to you to reform them. I believe you are doing God’s work. Keep at it. Do not get discouraged. Stay strong.
aaron3579 01-28-05, 11:57 AM	I say just do it and then when the players go elswhere, you can start learning to DM correctly. A previous poster said something about this being a game, NOT a power trip. You are going from one extreme to another. Just as the first DM was too lenient you are trying to be to constrictive. If it isn't fun then people will not play or will play elsewhere. I swear, there are some people on these boards that lose touch with what D&D should be all about, FUN. If someone wants to build a character that is optimized for damage or optimized for role play, then it is fun for that player. Make it fun and everyone will keep playing. [read this post slowly, as it is an honest reflection of where I am coming from] Look, [takes a deep breath] I'm not a jerk that likes to see his players not having fun, and I don't think that this DM is either. D&D is about fun? Exactly. [smiles] I truly believe that a low-magic, high-risk, underpowered world is great fun. I mean, I honestly feel like there are serious advantages that lead to more fun when you play in an extremely conservative environment. For one thing, IMC, players are lucky if they find their first magic item by the time they are 9th level. Does this make my game more or less fun? I say more fun, and so do my players. When magic becomes something so rare that average people don't even believe in it, it becomes that much more... well, magical. This logic can be applied to all of the 'crazy' rules that this DM wants to impose. I really feel where this DM is coming from. His goal is not to make the game less fun; it is to show to his players [B]his vision of what real fun is all about. I am a musician. When playing a piece of music, one way for me to convey excitement is a dynamic change [from pianissimo(very soft) to fortissimo (very loud)]. This technique is most effective when one starts very soft, and gradually crescendos into an explosion of sound. The beauty is in the change from soft to loud, not loud to louder. As his campaign progresses forward, and the PCs gain levels, he will barely need to put any effort into his encounters and BAM! distilled excitement. Perhaps another analogy: Think of the campaign like a game of chess. Now, think back to when you taught your little brother, or son, or youger cousin to play chess. You want to let the little guy win, but you don't want to let him know that you let him win. He should feel challenged, and yet he should prevail. The players are like a child learning to play chess, not because they are immature, but because they are only in a postion to win if the DM allows them to do so. The easier it is for the DM to beat the crap out of the players, the easier it becomes for the DM to put on the illusion that the players are one step away from their doom, and the more fun they have when they prevail. ;)
SiruisBlack 01-28-05, 05:55 PM	Ok, aaron3579 if a very well versed DM ran this campaign it could be fun but as the original poster stated he is new, therefore it will probably not be too enjoyable. D&D isn't designed for a 22 point buy. The DM will have to adjust CR for this kind of setup hence the very well versed DM statement. With the low point buy and other restrictions, a player will be hard pressed to meet skill checks and don't even think about the later levels and the corresponding encounters. Aaron your argument has value, it just isn't applicable to this situation. I can honestly say that if I were put in this situation as a player, I would draw up a Druid and dump most other stats. This "build" would be the only one I can think of that would be able to meet the CR encounters and still be able to meet the nonphysical skill checks. I think you are making an argument for a certain style, when the other posters are addressing the problem with the original post. It really comes down to DMing experience of the original poster. I think you might want to take this argument to a separate thread and ironically I will support a lot of your arguments under the right DM. D&D is not about combat or role play but both. The characters should be able to meet both of these requirements under normal (not low powered) conditions. This seems to be a very low powered campaign and that translates to both role play and encounters.
scott644 01-28-05, 06:25 PM	I truly believe that a low-magic, high-risk, underpowered world is great fun. It can be. For one thing, IMC, players are lucky if they find their first magic item by the time they are 9th level. Does this make my game more or less fun? I say more fun, and so do my players. Now treat your players like this in Forgotten Realms, where your typical NPC has magic items probably before 4th level. Treat them with those crazy rules in a high-power campaign setting geared for elite builds (at least) when they're not accustomed even to a balanced game. Guaranteed lack of fun would ensue, I assure you. As his campaign progresses forward, and the PCs gain levels, he will barely need to put any effort into his encounters and BAM! distilled excitement. The trick is getting them to where they care enough to try. After being FORCED to choose betwen being told by completely random rolls what you'll play, or being FORCED to take a substandard point buy, they're already going to be working with characters they won't want or feel happy with in the least. Then go through the first few sessions watching them suffer rousing defeat after rousing defeat, because the game is designed around players having respectable choices as to what they want to play, and see how many you have left even willing to play, much less play those PCs. The BEST the DM can hope for is players obsessing with their PCs, determined to make something out of them despite what their DM has done to them - a confrontational "us versus him" mentality that will hurt the game as well. They won't ever be such characters - just happy they didn't let that (censored) get over on them like he thought he would. That is NOT a fun game by any stretch of the imagination. In the end, checkmate, everybody loses. I can honestly say that if I were put in this situation as a player, I would draw up a Druid and dump most other stats. This "build" would be the only one I can think of that would be able to meet the CR encounters and still be able to meet the nonphysical skill checks. Oh I don't know. Go with 5 12's and a 10, and run the generic thief or fighter and you *might* do passing well. You could make a weak ranger or monk, or an exceptionally weak paladin or bard. Forget about the PSC's.
Habronicus 01-28-05, 07:38 PM	After reading some of the replies other people have posted (at least those who are not in my ignore list), I came up with an idea... how about shifting the location from Forgotten Realms to a homebrew setting? Think about it... in a homebrew setting, half-orcs don't have to exist, heroes may be rare (22 PBS), and those that do exist may follow their Destiny or fight against it (the roll stats, keep order rolled, choose a class which fits the stats, or go with the class you want even if you have penalties... thingy). I'm aware that the OP says he's relatively new at this, but it might be worth a shot... specially since the alternative is irking pretty much everyone who posted so far.
Nom 01-28-05, 10:31 PM	To get players to try something different, there are two main approaches: * How about we give this a try? * My game, my rules. Likewise, in terms of toning down an overpowered campaign, you could: * "softly, softly" - try to tweak things back down a little. The potential problem is that the players may be used to begging things off the previous DM, and thus may become frustrated when you are not as generous. * "core rules" - this has two big advantages. Firstly, you have the "this is how the game was designed and balanced" argument on your side. Secondly, you are not the final arbiter; if a player doesn't like a ruling, you can simply say "look it up in the book". * "my rules" - you get to set the game up how you feel it will work best. The downside is that if a player doesn't like it, you're the bad guy. With a not entirely willing group, you need to consider how antagonistic an approach you wish to take. "My game, my rules, and this is what they are" is the strongest approach. You're telling, not inviting, and you're setting yourself up as the authority. If you're really concerned about balance and feel, I'd recommend trying a "try it, you might like it" approach. You may also want to consider using "core rules"; they're very close to what you listed, but you have their authority to back up claims of balance. Add too many house rules and you lose that backup.