Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Psimind25 01-28-05, 03:37 PM	hi all, ive found a new game, but however, the DM is my younger, strict and headstrong brother. the game is set in eberron and he has the following house rules: -Psionics are allowed -No minions can be used (Arcane is forbidden from the Conjuration school, as psions are forbidden the Metacreativity disipline. also druids and rangers not allowed. as he does not want to put up with summons, Astral Constructs, nature's ally, or animal companions. this also includes the leadership feat for followers and Cohorts). -Fighters may not use "barbaric weapons" (defied as Greatswords, Greataxes, throwing axes) fighters may not put their biggest scores in Str and Con and Neglect Int and Dex. also feats like cleve. if you do, he will force you to be a Barbarian. he elieves fighters are cold and calculating graful fighters who only use cunning tactics/feats and small elegant weapon that net more damage rather than gross like barbarians. (its how he allways plays a fighter, 2 shorts sword, 18 dex, 16 int, lowers scores in everything else. TWF, Expertise, Weapon Finess, etc.) -Bards are also not allowed as he believe they are all Evil. due to the fact they control people disposition and thoughts. he believes this of nongood are specifically evil behavior. same reason he is also forbidding the Ehchantment school and Telepathy Disipline. there you have it. lets see, Druids, Rangers, and Bards are a no go. add that with everything else...... is this too strict? i myself can make do. Shifter Psywar w/ unarmed stike (Hehe, good ol psionic monk.)
Megrim_Lord 01-28-05, 03:47 PM	no offense, but that is abusive and stupid. He has effectively nerfed EVERY class in the entire game, actually... I rephrase, he has made every class virtually UNPLAYABLE. If he has no reason for any of this other than basing it on his own personal opinions of what should be what or because he doesnt want to "deal with it" then he is being lazy, abusive, pigheaded and stupid. I would seriously consider talking some sense into him, because that is as close to total DM Naziism as it gets...
Psimind25 01-28-05, 04:04 PM	hmm..... i dunno how to approach him about it thogh..... hes very stuborn..... he belives using summons cohorts etc. is weak and evil, because "Heroes should allways have the resolve to solve their own problems than rely on things the DM controls to get the job done" he thnks just because a Lich uses minions, makes the heroes Wusses for using the same tactics. he believe mind affecting is "Evil" because he thinks Good people dont exploit others. he says about this the same as the comment about liches, cept replace lich with Mind Flayer and minions with Mind Affecting. he also says druids serve no real purpose in a party and they and bards just waste party space. that clerics get their jobs done far better. as for the Fighter/Barbarian issue. he says that NO fighter is entitled to be dumb, they have too many feats to be done, and "If a good player is doig the fighrer, hell actually take feat that req Dex/int like Expertise, no fighter SHOUDENT take Expertise." he usually plays a Human Fighter/Weapon Master. with mastery in the Short Sword. and also, he told me he probably wont alow rouge because he believes disorable fighting (hide checks and sneak attack) to be an evil act. as with pickpocketing and bluffing.
Stuntman 01-28-05, 04:23 PM	-Fighters may not use "barbaric weapons" (defied as Greatswords, Greataxes, throwing axes) fighters may not put their biggest scores in Str and Con and Neglect Int and Dex. also feats like cleve. if you do, he will force you to be a Barbarian. he elieves fighters are cold and calculating graful fighters who only use cunning tactics/feats and small elegant weapon that net more damage rather than gross like barbarians. (its how he allways plays a fighter, 2 shorts sword, 18 dex, 16 int, lowers scores in everything else. TWF, Expertise, Weapon Finess, etc.) This is highly restrictive. No DM I know has ever forced you to put ability scores in any particular order. Saying a fighter cannot put his best ability scores in Str and Con is like saying a wizard cannot put his highest ability score in Int or a rogue cannot put his highest ability score in Dex. There is no reason to do this. How would he feel if you ran a game where you forbid him to put his highest ability scores in Dex and Int and he cannot use wimpy weapons like short swords? If he does, you force him to be a ranger instead. If he wants to play a finess fighter, he can. Just don't force everyone else to play a fighter like he plays his fighter. The best feature of the fighter is its flexibility in fighting styles and feats. Why take away the best feature of a fighter? -Bards are also not allowed as he believe they are all Evil. due to the fact they control people disposition and thoughts. he believes this of nongood are specifically evil behavior. same reason he is also forbidding the Ehchantment school and Telepathy Disipline. You run into a burglar in your house. You cast Sleep on him, tie him up and take him to jail. Is this evil? I don't think so. You see some guy walking down the street. For no reason, you cast Sleep on him and kill him while he is sleeping. This is evil. Enchantments are neither good nor evil. It is how you use those spells that determine whether your actions were good or evil. -No minions can be used (Arcane is forbidden from the Conjuration school, as psions are forbidden the Metacreativity disipline. also druids and rangers not allowed. as he does not want to put up with summons, Astral Constructs, nature's ally, or animal companions. this also includes the leadership feat for followers and Cohorts). Is he preventing you from getting a psicrystal as well? Is he not allowing paladins from getting their warhorse? Is he not allowing wizards from getting a familiar? I see no reason for doing this. This seems way too strict to me. The idea of D&D is that players and DM's can do these cool things. If the DM can't handle these things, perhaps he should stick to running a simpler game like Dragon Strike.
Megrim_Lord 01-28-05, 04:25 PM	hmm..... i dunno how to approach him about it thogh..... hes very stuborn..... he belives using summons cohorts etc. is weak and evil, because "Heroes should allways have the resolve to solve their own problems than rely on things the DM controls to get the job done" he thnks just because a Lich uses minions, makes the heroes Wusses for using the same tactics. he believe mind affecting is "Evil" because he thinks Good people dont exploit others. he says about this the same as the comment about liches, cept replace lich with Mind Flayer and minions with Mind Affecting. he also says druids serve no real purpose in a party and they and bards just waste party space. that clerics get their jobs done far better. as for the Fighter/Barbarian issue. he says that NO fighter is entitled to be dumb, they have too many feats to be done, and "If a good player is doig the fighrer, hell actually take feat that req Dex/int like Expertise, no fighter SHOUDENT take Expertise." he usually plays a Human Fighter/Weapon Master. with mastery in the Short Sword. and also, he told me he probably wont alow rouge because he believes disorable fighting (hide checks and sneak attack) to be an evil act. as with pickpocketing and bluffing. thats exactly the problem, everything is based on HIS views, not anyone elses. He wants everything to fit perfectly with HIS view of the way things work, not allowing the players any leeway to use their own imagination. just to be thorough, I'll include a quick counterexample to every one of his opinions. Summoning: it isn't evil, it's advantageous. a good mage will summon minions because he's smart, and knows better to go into melee and get his brittle little body crushed to bits. Mind Affecting: if mind affecting is evil, then so are dogmatic paladins and good aligned clerics who try to convert others. under his rule, Zone of Truth should be a blackguard spell Druids: Druids serve the same purposes as clerics, plus they can fight, heal, blast, and shapeshift. Druids and Bards are integral to parties BECAUSE they are all around characters with support capabilities. besides, no one is more charismatic/diplomatic than a bard, and who would suspect tat a nearby cat is actually a druid in disguise? Fighters & barbarians: fighters can be dumb, they just are apt towards different fighting styles. some fighters are cunning swashbucklers, while others are big brutal wallbreakers. being a good player has nothing to do with how smart your character is, it has to do with how well you flesh out and roleplay your concept. Grognar Gungbar the Fighter with a big heart, small brain, and love of all things small and furry with a great personality etc etc is a much better character than... Bob the Fighter, Int 18... Rogue: If he doesn't allow rogues, he isn't a nazi, he's just plain ignorant. Rogues are crucial to all parties, even if they are sneaky and shifty, theyre supposed to be.. THEYRE ROGUES FOR **** SAKE!!! ~~~~~ All in all I'd say your brother has a very bad, stereotypical view of what a party should be good. exalted. lawful. honorable. absolute heroes That isn't normally true a party is composed of characters who are supposed to be realistic, not larger than life. Heroes arent always good, or honorable. heroes have flaws, dreams, aspirations, personality, and a style all their own. your brother doesn't seem to get that. He wants you to be the huffy stuffed up LG crusaders of all that is good and righteous blah blah etc. He needs to realize that it isnt all about what HE wants, it's his job to make things fun for the players, not force them to do what they dont want. If you want to be evil, then he should let you, meanwhile the same kinds of heroes he wanted you to be could be out hunting for you. He is a storyteller, provider of adventure and an occasional referee, not the almighty plotmaster with a leash in one hand and railroad tracks in the other
clarkvalentine 01-28-05, 04:26 PM	Your DM sounds a bit on the looney side. He might be happier with a different hobby, or at least a different game.
Madmartigan 01-28-05, 04:31 PM	I'd have to agree with Stuntman. Your DM seems to be running into the simple problem of wanting to DM himself without having to "play" the Player Characters. Do you see what I'm getting at? If you guys play under all those house rules, you'll probably be back on the boards at a later date asking about "being railroaded" and other constrictions that crop up when things are left unattended. You need to let him know that if he wants to run a "heroic" campaign, he needs to let the players know that (sometimes called an exaulted campaign, I think, by others?). But with what he is doing, let him know that he is not letting the players play the game, but mind as well hand out pregenerated characters to people with their personalities all ready hammered out. Part of the problem is that he should be encouraging you guys (the Players) in comming up with how your good character can justify (perhaps too "harsh" a word - let's use "explain: then) how what they do fits with their alignments. Just as a side note, he needs to re-evaluate his conceptions of what makes a person evil or craven (don't associate strenth with good and weakness with evil). Also, it sounds like he just doesn't want to deal with extra units that people might have other than just the PCs alone. You'll have some rather boring adventures unless your DM is an exceptional story teller ....
allenchan 01-28-05, 04:31 PM	Deffinately a loon. If you really are related to him, I would start worrying about your own sanity. :(
Thorak 01-28-05, 04:35 PM	hmm..... i dunno how to approach him about it thogh..... hes very stuborn..... he belives using summons cohorts etc. is weak and evil, because "Heroes should allways have the resolve to solve their own problems than rely on things the DM controls to get the job done" he thnks just because a Lich uses minions, makes the heroes Wusses for using the same tactics. So King Arthur wasn't a hero, because he had the Knights of the Round Table and Merlin around? Batman wasn't, because of Robin? Not to mention the X-men, the Fantastic Four, and every other superhero group. And, of course, if "heroes have to solve their own problems", why the heck is he letting you guys form a party? Get out there in singles, because your friends can't help you. In other words, he has made a snap decision on a subject he hasn't put any thought into. he believe mind affecting is "Evil" because he thinks Good people dont exploit others. he says about this the same as the comment about liches, cept replace lich with Mind Flayer and minions with Mind Affecting. Mind manipulating is stretching to evil. I doubt he really thinks affecting minds is. Are all psychiatrists and psychologists spawns of Satan? Are antidepressant drugs evil little pills? And how about inspiring others to do their best, and lifting their spirits? Bards are just as good at that as the more manipulative stuff. he also says druids serve no real purpose in a party and they and bards just waste party space. that clerics get their jobs done far better. If by "waste party space" he means "can easily fill the role of 3, 4, or more other character classes in a pinch", then he's right. These two classes excel because they're very good at several things. Where most classes are exceptional at only one or two. as for the Fighter/Barbarian issue. he says that NO fighter is entitled to be dumb, they have too many feats to be done, and "If a good player is doig the fighrer, hell actually take feat that req Dex/int like Expertise, no fighter SHOUDENT take Expertise." Ahh. In other words, he has never actually done any combat training, and therefore hasn't seen people he knows are of lesser capacity than himself outperform him consistently. I have, and can confirm that intelligence has nothing to do with combat ability. Combat is instinctive more than tactical. If you have to take the time to think about it, the situation's already changed. I'm not saying it's irrelevant. Just that it's certainly not a prime factor. he usually plays a Human Fighter/Weapon Master. with mastery in the Short Sword. and also, he told me he probably wont alow rouge because he believes disorable fighting (hide checks and sneak attack) to be an evil act. as with pickpocketing and bluffing. Ahh. In other words he can't distinguish between unlawful acts and evil ones. I'm sure he thinks Robin Hood was a filthy criminal who deserved to be hung, and that Prince John was a paragon of virtue. Seriously, pick up your PHB, and hit your brother over the head with it. And point him at this thread. I can handle the no-cohorts-or-summons thing, if it were because he didn't want to have to deal with it as the DM. Not for the reasons he used, though. And everything else, quite frankly, is a hasty decision made in pretty much complete ignorance of anything related to the topic, as I've shown in my examples above. He's powertripping because he's the "almighty DM". Remind him that, without players, he's playing with himself. And suggest that, unless he tones down the houserules, you'll get another game going where someone else is DMing instead.
Psimind25 01-28-05, 04:39 PM	well ive tried talking with him, he says his real issue with summons is he doesnt want to have to control all the stuff you summon, he says its straining to the dm. he also says he just never cared for druids, because hes never seen a point behind him. he thinks they are kind of "Gimped" or "underpowered" and they need rework come 4th ed. he just dont like bards very much as they are "no good in a war." his thing with fighters, is he would like someone to rp a fighter like semi-intelligent rather than a Barbarian with a lot of feats and no rage. he says theres really no point. butr im trying to work with him.
Stuntman 01-28-05, 04:53 PM	he belives using summons cohorts etc. is weak and evil, because "Heroes should allways have the resolve to solve their own problems than rely on things the DM controls to get the job done" he thnks just because a Lich uses minions, makes the heroes Wusses for using the same tactics. I guess just because an evil fighter uses short swords, combat expertise and TWF makes the heros wusses for using the same tactics. I guess a Lich who casts magic missile at the party makes the heros wusses for using the same tactics. he believe mind affecting is "Evil" because he thinks Good people dont exploit others. he says about this the same as the comment about liches, cept replace lich with Mind Flayer and minions with Mind Affecting. I guess casting Heroism (an Enchantment) make the heroes evil for using a mind affecting spell. Oh, the irony. The heros cannot cast Heroism. :rolleyes: he also says druids serve no real purpose in a party and they and bards just waste party space. that clerics get their jobs done far better. It sounds like he has no idea how to play these classes. It sounds like he thinks that if he cannot play them effectively, no one can. That sounds like a unreasonable reason to forbid them. as for the Fighter/Barbarian issue. he says that NO fighter is entitled to be dumb, they have too many feats to be done, and "If a good player is doig the fighrer, hell actually take feat that req Dex/int like Expertise, no fighter SHOUDENT take Expertise." The number of abilities a class has is not related to intelligence. You don't get more feats for having more intelligence. Look at all the other classes and prestige classes available. Most of them have more abilities than the fighter has feats. You don't put an lower cap on intelligence for those classes. NO DM has the right to dictate how a player allocates his ability score and not DM has the right to dictate which feats his fighter should take. he usually plays a Human Fighter/Weapon Master. with mastery in the Short Sword. So how does what he usually plays affect how I choose to play my fighter? Just because I usually play a Fighter/Sorcerer/Spellsword doesn't meant that all fighters in my game must multiclass into an arcane caster class. and also, he told me he probably wont alow rouge because he believes disorable fighting (hide checks and sneak attack) to be an evil act. as with pickpocketing and bluffing. I guess anyone who every played hide and seek is doing an evil act when they are hiding. I guess any magician who performs slight of hand tricks to entertain an audience is evil. I guess only evil people play poker (or are any good at it). I guess if you want to kill someone evil, and you had to ability to strike at his vitals (sneak attack), you wouldn't because it is evil. You'll just decide to wave your sneak attack and do less damage to him.
Megrim_Lord 01-28-05, 05:00 PM	yes, and I'll say it again, HE needs to realize the fact that it's not ALL ABOUT HIM! despite what HE wants, what important is what the PLAYERS want. if HE'S too lazy to deal with summons, and HE'S too bigotted to shift from HIS views and let the players and their characters develop on their own without HIS biased opinions weighted down on them then HE SHOULDNT DM. but after that, some more counter examples Druid: if he really thinks druids are underpowered, you should tie him down and monkey-stomp him... druids are without a doubt the most versatile and devastating core class around, provided there arent any *COUGH COUGH* biased DMs *COUGH COUGH* around to nerf them Summons: stop being such a lazy fart you punk!!! Bards: they arent SUPPOSED to be good in war! theyre frickin minstrels and songstresses, I mean JEEZ! regardless, they make average fighters and spellcasters, and are often depicted as serving as the drummer boy type in magical setting wars Fighters: IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT HE WANTS!!! it matters what the players want, tell him to get over himself I commend you for being able to "work with him" because I would have smacked the lips off of his mouth every time he opened it by now... :headexplo :headexplo :headexplo :headexplo :headexplo If you can't tell, I get REALLY worked up over things like this, ignorance sickens me to no end... IM HAPPY AGAIN (i guess I needed a good rant)!! :D :D
was_fired 01-28-05, 05:07 PM	This guy isn't fit to be a DM. Not allowing leadership, fine this comes up a lot in larger groups. Banning a few classes for flavor: okay this can come up as well, but not often. Forcing a class to build itself in an inferior manner every time, calling neutral acts evil, but he has shown he doesn't even understand game balance, and as such he should not DM.
Madmartigan 01-28-05, 05:12 PM	Um, some rants are better left unsaid .... well ive tried talking with him, he says his real issue with summons is he doesnt want to have to control all the stuff you summon, he says its straining to the dm. he also says he just never cared for druids, because hes never seen a point behind him. he thinks they are kind of "Gimped" or "underpowered" and they need rework come 4th ed. he just dont like bards very much as they are "no good in a war." his thing with fighters, is he would like someone to rp a fighter like semi-intelligent rather than a Barbarian with a lot of feats and no rage. he says theres really no point. butr im trying to work with him. The DM does not control the Summoned Creature, it is directed by the PC (most of the time). The same deal with Animals - the Players must use Handle Animal to determine what they do, otherwise they tend to mill about and do nothing, or as the PHB says, they Bolt! The problem goes back to my earlier post - he needs to let you guys know what type of campaign world he will be running (in the case he decides not to ask you players what campaign style you'd like to play in) and then nudge people in a direction that might be more suitable. Outright bias against classes or races for reasons other than simply campaign style (like removing monks from a pure 13th century France Campaign) tends to just create problems. Besides, removing classes and such tend to make the Campaign world more boring and dry. Is every Two handed sword fighter going to be a barbarian? Oh, look, a two short sword Fighter, use Tactic A2 to defeat, because he's a cardboard villian. Just my two cents.
e-z0r 01-28-05, 05:49 PM	Actually, the druid may just be THE most powerful class in the PHB. Take a look at the character optimization boards for druid builds (using a legendary ape wildshape and such), build a good druid and show him how well you can completely wreck his campaign as nothing he puts up (within reasonable limits) can stand against you. Mwahah. :) Anyway, I would suggest you dump this DM if it didn't already know how you're having a hard time finding games to play. Situation being, just game with him, entice him into reading the DM guide. Give him some sort of "how to be a good game master" manual for a birthday present. Get him started reading these boards (show this thread!). And sometimes just put your foot down and say "This is my character, and I'm doing it my way!" Surely, a DM should have some say-in to what characters his players make in his campaign, but not this far and not without good - very good - reasons. If he's banned a class because he doesn't like it or thinks it's underpowered, or if he tries to force you into making your character just the way he likes it, you have every right (in my opinion) to say "No. This is not your character, and you're not making it." For example, I have a DM who sometimes tries to tell me how my character feels. One time we were playing World of Darkness, and he had this storyline out of a movie he had watched. He said "Well, you're all high school students. You live with your parents, and you have no idea about anything supernatural about the world. You haven't seen any ghosts or vampires or anything like that." This much is okay - This is a storyline which is centered on these people who are of a certain type. So of course the DM can say that you have to base your character on this. When I said my character is a punk (Leather jacket with studs, mohawk, army boots fixed with duct tape and so on and so on), he said "No you're not. You don't feel the need to express yourself in that way. You're just bored by the town you live in because nothing happens there, but you've never felt the need to express it like this." This is where I went "What the F? Excuse me, but this is my char and I do believe it's my right to decide whether I'm a punk or not. Of course, unless the plot depends on me NOT being a punk." So respect the DM's right to limit your character classes within reason, ban things he thinks are too powerful - within reason, and generally guide your character making - within reason. But remember to hold on to your character. It is yours, after all. By the way, to whoever said the bard is the most charismatic and diplomatic class: Bollocks. Just as a player playing a bard, a player playing a rogue can set an 18 CHA, and he'll have more skill points. A bard does get some of the mind affecting spells easier, and the bardsong, but those are sort of "extra". In a purist sense, a rogue is better. And why do you say a rogue is supposed to be sneaky and shifty? A thief might, but a rogue can be various different types, not just sneaky and shifty.
Megrim_Lord 01-28-05, 06:02 PM	By the way, to whoever said the bard is the most charismatic and diplomatic class: Bollocks. Just as a player playing a bard, a player playing a rogue can set an 18 CHA, and he'll have more skill points. A bard does get some of the mind affecting spells easier, and the bardsong, but those are sort of "extra". In a purist sense, a rogue is better. And why do you say a rogue is supposed to be sneaky and shifty? A thief might, but a rogue can be various different types, not just sneaky and shifty. a rogue gets skillpoints based on charisma? I never knew :rolleyes: :D By all means you can be a bard with CHA 8 if you want, I wont stop you, I was just stating that generally bards are very charismatic (considering the whole class relies on CHA) I was being general when I said a rogue was sneaky and shifty, your right, they dont HAVE to be (though one would expect them to, what with sneak attack and all those dex based skills, not to mention bluff and disguise :D) thank you for illustrating my point. NOTHING HAS TO BE ANYTHING!!! I could be a knight and try to sneak around in heavy armor, banners flying at the same time! I could be a rogue wearing full plate and wielding a huge maul! I could be an ogre wizard with an INT of 8! The only things constraining you are your imagination and the system itself, AT NO TIME should the dm be a third constraint, if anything he should be an enabler
e-z0r 01-28-05, 07:00 PM	Well, Megrim, that's not cynicism, that's sarcasm. And to answer it, I didn't say rogues get skill points based on charisma. I said rogues get more skill points (8 per level plus int and racial mods) than bards (6 per level plus int and racial mods). And I meant a rogue can just as easily put the 18 he rolled into CHA as a bard can. The bard doesn't get any CHA based skills that the rogue doesn't. Now, the rogue does indeed have many dex based skills. The rogue also has many wisdom based skills, many int based skills, and many cha based skills. All in all, the rogue has a huge skill list. A rogue has no obligation to pick the sneaky ones out of the bunch. A rogue could just as well be the knowledgeable and sociable traveling enterpreneur as he could be the sneaky pickpocketer and backstabber. Sneak attack doesn't require any sneaky or shifty behavior. You don't have to sneak around to be able to use it. You only need to be flanking your opponent. Any type of combattant will get tremendous usage out of this ability, whether your rogue is the charmant swashbuckler or the sneaky shifty feller or many other types of characters. Now, a fighter sneaking around in full plate and tower shield or the ogre mage with 8 int or the rogue with the maul are just nonfunctional because they're trying to do things with no idea of their own strengths and no idea of how the things they try to do are supposed to be done. You are trying to make it sound as if these characters were analogous to a rogue who isn't shifty and sneaky, when they aren't even near.
allenchan 01-28-05, 07:03 PM	Snip. :bow: :clap: :ayyyy!:
e-z0r 01-28-05, 07:12 PM	Allenchan, Snip? I don't get it. I never said Snip. (Believe me, I even ctrl+f'ed for Snip., and the only ones on the page were yours and now this post.)
Megrim_Lord 01-28-05, 07:26 PM	Well, Megrim, that's not cynicism, that's sarcasm. And to answer it, I didn't say rogues get skill points based on charisma. I said rogues get more skill points (8 per level plus int and racial mods) than bards (6 per level plus int and racial mods). And I meant a rogue can just as easily put the 18 he rolled into CHA as a bard can. The bard doesn't get any CHA based skills that the rogue doesn't. Now, the rogue does indeed have many dex based skills. The rogue also has many wisdom based skills, many int based skills, and many cha based skills. All in all, the rogue has a huge skill list. A rogue has no obligation to pick the sneaky ones out of the bunch. A rogue could just as well be the knowledgeable and sociable traveling enterpreneur as he could be the sneaky pickpocketer and backstabber. Sneak attack doesn't require any sneaky or shifty behavior. You don't have to sneak around to be able to use it. You only need to be flanking your opponent. Any type of combattant will get tremendous usage out of this ability, whether your rogue is the charmant swashbuckler or the sneaky shifty feller or many other types of characters. Now, a fighter sneaking around in full plate and tower shield or the ogre mage with 8 int or the rogue with the maul are just nonfunctional because they're trying to do things with no idea of their own strengths and no idea of how the things they try to do are supposed to be done. You are trying to make it sound as if these characters were analogous to a rogue who isn't shifty and sneaky, when they aren't even near. I suppose it was more sarcastic than cynical, either way your still proving the point I want to make. I never intended to get into functional intimacities, I just wanted to get the point across that in D&D you should be able to be whatever you want, without unreasonable DM constraints, that's it, so why try to argue with me over something I wasn't even trying to prove? and actually you said "Just as a player playing a bard, a player playing a rogue can set an 18 CHA, and he'll have more skill points" which seems to imply exactly what I was sarcastically saying you said, not what you claim to have meant, so wouldn't it have been easier to have just said what you meant in the first place? :D
e-z0r 01-28-05, 07:41 PM	I suppose it was more sarcastic than cynical, either way your still proving the point I want to make. I never intended to get into functional intimacities, I just wanted to get the point across that in D&D you should be able to be whatever you want, without unreasonable DM constraints, that's it, so why try to argue with me over something I wasn't even trying to prove? and actually you said "Just as a player playing a bard, a player playing a rogue can set an 18 CHA, and he'll have more skill points" which seems to imply exactly what I was sarcastically saying you said, not what you claim to have meant, so wouldn't it have been easier to have just said what you meant in the first place? :D Cynicism is quite different from sarcasm. Dictionary.com will tell you how. Anyway, I agree with you, a DM shouldn't restrict your character unreasonably. However, this was not what I was arguing with you about. I was simply arguing about you saying that no one is more charismatic/diplomatic than a bard. Which is wrong. What comes to you either purposefully or unpurposefully misunderstanding me: My sentence was fine. I didn't say "A player playing a rogue can set an 18 CHA, so he will have more skill points". Instead I was bringing out why a rogue can be better at being the charismatic talker of the party. For two reasons: A rogue's player can have an 18 CHA the same way a bard can, AND the rogue will have more skill points. Nevertheless, the sentence was not immune to being misread, as is often the case with written text. One should excercise care when finding a sentence or thought chain that sounds dumb, so that one can be sure that it actually is as dumb as it looks.
Psimind25 01-28-05, 07:44 PM	i talked to him again, i got him to ease up a little, he just is weirded out by druids because they are hard to roleplay as are bards. hes giving them a little more slack, and he going to allow summoning finally, after all that coaxing, he just feels its gonna be a lot of work for him to keep up with all the leadership followers, animal companions, nature's ally, etc.
Edymnion 01-28-05, 08:11 PM	hmm..... i dunno how to approach him about it thogh..... hes very stuborn.....Well, thats simple. Tell him "I don't like those rules, and I don't want to play under them. If you insist on using them, I won't be playing."
e-z0r 01-28-05, 08:11 PM	i talked to him again, i got him to ease up a little, he just is weirded out by druids because they are hard to roleplay as are bards. hes giving them a little more slack, and he going to allow summoning finally, after all that coaxing, he just feels its gonna be a lot of work for him to keep up with all the leadership followers, animal companions, nature's ally, etc. Yes but the DM doesn't keep up with the followers and animal companions and nature's allies. The player of the character does.
Psimind25 01-28-05, 08:53 PM	he also seems uncofortable with players looking at the MM for summons and animals.
Megrim_Lord 01-28-05, 09:34 PM	Cynicism is quite different from sarcasm. Dictionary.com will tell you how. Anyway, I agree with you, a DM shouldn't restrict your character unreasonably. However, this was not what I was arguing with you about. I was simply arguing about you saying that no one is more charismatic/diplomatic than a bard. Which is wrong. What comes to you either purposefully or unpurposefully misunderstanding me: My sentence was fine. I didn't say "A player playing a rogue can set an 18 CHA, so he will have more skill points". Instead I was bringing out why a rogue can be better at being the charismatic talker of the party. For two reasons: A rogue's player can have an 18 CHA the same way a bard can, AND the rogue will have more skill points. Nevertheless, the sentence was not immune to being misread, as is often the case with written text. One should excercise care when finding a sentence or thought chain that sounds dumb, so that one can be sure that it actually is as dumb as it looks. You're right, cynicism is different than sarcasm, I recognize that, and I never debated that. however you still seem to miss the whole point. I did say that no one is more charismatic than the bard, which, given the class's focus on charisma, is USUALLY true, however I wasn't saying that because I necessarily believed it to be true, I said it as a counterexample to the fact that the OP's brother thought them useless. I never misinterperated your sentence, I purposefully and falsely interperated it in a very literal sense to make a lighthearted jest as to the manner in which it was posted, and yes you did say that because that's what you posted, and I quoted you twice, once in quote blocks and once taken from that same quote block. I understand that's not what you MEANT, but it is what you TYPED. nevertheless it seems we both got our point across to the OP and his brother, so some good came out of it
Blairconz 01-28-05, 09:41 PM	What's wrong with being evil? I can sympathize with the young fellow though, when I started off I wanted the players to be good. Isn't enchantment essentially good, as in not using violence (Fireball, acid cloud, metoer swarm are personal faves) to resovle conflict? Just let him make his mistakes, Its the best way to learn. :)
Thorak 01-28-05, 09:57 PM	he also seems uncofortable with players looking at the MM for summons and animals. Point him at page 5 of the PHB. Specifically, three lines below the heading "What you need to play." See the parentheses? See how, referring to the PHB, DMG, and MM, it says "All players might want to have their own copies of the books"? Players are intended to not only be able to look at the MM, but to have their own copy to leaf through at will. Same for the DMG. God I hate control-freaks. He needs to learn that his position is not to set out the rules. His job is twofold; he is the referee, and he is the storyteller. That's it.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-28-05, 11:18 PM	Ok. how to say it without sounding rude, as it's not my intention... Psimind, you seem to have a problem with every group you attend. You need to understand that things are not gonna always be exactly as you want them. Every group you'll meet will have a few things bothering you. The key to finding the right group is to ask yourself if you can deal with the minor desagrements. If you can, it's a good group. If not, keep searching. What I'm trying to say is, well, be a bit more positive. As for your current DM, yes, it's restrictive. It might even be stupid. But ultimately, he's the DM. He CAN nerf all classes if he want, as he can ban some he don't like, find overpowered or even ban whole races from his setting. It's HIS world. You, on the other hand can A): Try to change his mind B): Choose not to play. C): Choose to play. The choice is yours.
Aricandor 01-29-05, 03:34 AM	Okay... He thinks fighters should be the sorely weak finesse fighters. Hi thinks they may not use two-handed weaponry. On top of that he thinks that druids are underpowered and bards are useless. I bet he thinks that all drow are CG, dual-scimitar wielding rangers too. :headexplo For Pete's sake, gather the group and talk some sense into him! Relieve him of the DMG and smack him with it a couple of times if this doesn't help. He's entitled to his opinions. He's entitled to changing things in the name of the flavor of the world. HOWEVER, he should not be entitled to tell you how to play the game! Gaaaahhhh!! :banghead:
DrWorm 01-29-05, 04:53 AM	One idea I used (not becuase I had any problem with my players looking in the MM, but so that they had easy refrences), was to cut an paste relavent parts from the SRD. It free online, incase you have not seen it yet, and easy to C+P the needed bits to a word doc. Then your DM can print them out and hand them to you. Even the most metagamy players cannot do much damage with a list of typical, low HD, non-magical animals and a few elementals. As for Leadership, I too have banned it from my games. It is just too easy for it to get out of hand.
Callista 01-29-05, 09:11 AM	I think it's possible to play a decently powerful character in that group, actually. I don't know about Psionics; haven't played with it yet; but there are options. For one, Barbarians aren't gypped. Grab a greatsword and go. And you *could* still make a finesse fighter or archer--check out the character optimization boards, those are possible. Wizards and sorcerers can make do without mind-affecting spells (Evocation and Conjuration spring to mind). Think creative uses for those spells. Then there are spells which don't involve actual damage but are nevertheless very useful: Invisibility, Rope Trick, Grease, Evard's Black Tentacles, Web, Mage Hand... Rogues are also going to be okay, too; and if you tailor a Rogue properly, he can be quite good--just don't stay at the front of battle; Rogues are better off feinting, Tumbling, sniping, et ctera. Try Use Magic Device--by level 6, if you've dumped enough points into it, you can easily be sneak-attacking through a Touch spell like Acid Splash. Or you can Grease the floor--balancing opponents are vulnerable to sneak attacks. Also, giving up a level of Rogue for a multiclass into a spellcasting class allows you to forego UMD checks for a lot of things. Actually, I think that's what I'd do--Rogues don't seem much handicapped at all by your DM's weird rules. Get Weapon Finesse with a rapier and focus on high DEX and CHA. If you like role-playing you could be a diplomat-style Rogue... Clerics are good. You'll usually want a shield and your deity's favored weapon with a Cleric, anyway; and if your DM objects to a heavily armored cleric, point out the clerics in the PHB are wearing heavy armor. Then point out that max DEX on those heavy armors isn't much; so you really don't need Dexterity. Then put your highest score in Wisdom, and after that either CHA (for turning undead) or STR (for turning non-undead... into mush, that is). Just don't be too reckless and get yourself killed; because the death of a cleric is often the first sign of a TPK. Clerics are good buffers--spells that strengthen the rest of the party are always welcome; and you can cast them on yourself, if no one is in need of healing and you want to kick some butt. And spells like Zone of Truth and Detect [Alignment] are seriously useful when you are trying to find information. Advice: Keep a wand of Cure and scrolls of Lesser Restoration around, so you can save your spells for other purposes. Especially do this if you are Neutral and have decided to channel negative energy! I dunno why your DM has made up such weird house rules, but you're the new player in the group, and they've got seniority--I don't think they'd listen to the new player asking them to change what they're used to. My advice to you--just roll with it until you've played with them for a while. By then you might have the clout to ask for a few minor changes at a time--but not for a while... not for a long while. Good luck.
Psimind25 01-29-05, 10:13 AM	well ive narrowed it down to this. Shifter Psywar w/ unarmed strike Kalastar Psion with metacreativity Disipline (I got permission because he feels etter about me looking at the back of the psi handbook than the MM) Warforged Psion with Psycokinesis disipline
Crossover-Chronicler 01-29-05, 12:15 PM	he belives using summons cohorts etc. is weak and evil, because "Heroes should allways have the resolve to solve their own problems than rely on things the DM controls to get the job done" he thnks just because a Lich uses minions, makes the heroes Wusses for using the same tactics.By that logic, paladins and clerics are pointless as the gods should be handling it all themslves. Besides which, the D&D alignment system disagrees (otherwise, how could a spel to summon Celestials be a [Good] spell?)he believe mind affecting is "Evil" because he thinks Good people dont exploit others. he says about this the same as the comment about liches, cept replace lich with Mind Flayer and minions with Mind Affecting.Orcs, Death Knights, and Blackguards use swords. Besides which, influence isn't necessarily exploitative. Which is worse: to charm an opponent, or to eviscreate him?he also says druids serve no real purpose in a party and they and bards just waste party space. that clerics get their jobs done far better.It's been said that clerics do any job better. Let the players worry about making themselves useful.as for the Fighter/Barbarian issue. he says that NO fighter is entitled to be dumb, they have too many feats to be done,most of which don't require Intelligence...and "If a good player is doig the fighrer, hell actually take feat that req Dex/int like Expertise, no fighter SHOUDENT take Expertise."A "good" player wouldn't need all these :censored: stupid rules to keep him in line. Again, it's the players' job to justify their characters. Besides which, if a Fighter weren't supposed to take those feats they wouldn't be on the fighter list! :tantrum: and also, he told me he probably wont alow rouge because he believes disorable fighting (hide checks and sneak attack) to be an evil act. as with pickpocketing and bluffing.Of course. :bored: Seriously, this guy just needs to get over himself... :nonono:
Callista 01-29-05, 12:17 PM	Not to mention distinguishing between "Evil act" and "Chaotic act". Dishonorable fighting is Evil?! No! It's Chaotic... and sometimes not even that! I mean, anyone who doesn't let the LG cleric set an ambush for the necromancer he's been trying to bring to justice... *sigh* Anyway. This is one of the DMs who should probably just forget about alignment (other than a couple of letters on the character sheet to determine what spells affect who) and just make some ground rules like "no killing innocent peasants" to avoid players going nuts. Oh well. Nobody's perfect... not DMs, not players...
Psimind25 01-29-05, 12:26 PM	well ive talked some more with him, hes had problems with rouge players before that were secretly going on large stealing sprees, and mind affecting people getting things really cheap (Like magic enhancmentt for weapons) so they might as well be stealing.
Megrim_Lord 01-29-05, 12:37 PM	rogues steal stuff, its just what they do (usually) there shouldn't have been a problem unless the layer was stealing from the party, in which case, the party should lynch him. did your brother even think to have the rogue put in a tight spot? for example he gets CAUGHT stealing and has to bail himself out?
Psimind25 01-29-05, 12:47 PM	i mean, he has problems with a 6th level rouge tealing gear for the party in which case the gear is so good it makes the characters too powerful. (Like pre epic gear)
DrWorm 01-29-05, 01:31 PM	A rogue can only take what the DM makes available.
Stuntman 01-29-05, 02:39 PM	well ive talked some more with him, hes had problems with rouge players before that were secretly going on large stealing sprees, and mind affecting people getting things really cheap (Like magic enhancmentt for weapons) so they might as well be stealing. Ask your DM to come to the DM board and ask for advice on how to deal with such things. Sooner or later the rogue will get caught and punished and have the items taken away. Put some very complex locks and traps that the rogue cant get past. Put some magical guardians that will attack someone stealing stuff. Have some NPC rogue steal the stuff from the party and see how they like it. The rogue needs to know who has the items and I doubt anyone would openly advertise it. If it is a magic shop, it will be heavily guarded with guards and magical traps and locks and stuff. It's only a level 6 rogue. With regard to mind affecting people, it sounds like he's not handling it correctly. Unless it is a high level spell, you don't gain complete control over someone enough for him to give you or make you magical items. Even if you are able to get him to hand over stuff, he'll want it back and will hunt down the guys to took his stuff.
Madmartigan 01-29-05, 09:37 PM	With regard to mind affecting people, it sounds like he's not handling it correctly. Unless it is a high level spell, you don't gain complete control over someone enough for him to give you or make you magical items. Even if you are able to get him to hand over stuff, he'll want it back and will hunt down the guys to took his stuff. Yeah, it does sound like he's not playing those spells as they should be played. Just an example, Charm Person is not a Dominate Person spell - you can try to get a person to do something they ordinarly would not do, but not something they would not do. Anyhow, spells that can break the game, like abuse of the Dominate Person spell, are easily countered (i.e., read as suppressed) by Protection from Evil/Good/Chaos/Law spells. If stuff like getting really big discounts from merchants via such spells starts to occur, then the merchant community might just adapt and begin using Protection From spells. But I'm rambling. Rogues can be somewhat abused, if you want to call it that, but if your DM states that he wants to play a game of all Good Aligned charcters, then your Rogue won't be going around stealing very much from fellow PCs or those who don't "deserve" it. Besides, your DM should adjust encounter levels according to the level and equipment of the party. In the case of the rogue becoming over powered, then the rest of his/her party will probably die in the next encounter, and without anyone else, s/he probably will go the way of the dinosaurs as well (except ... dinosaurs are alive in dnd, so, yeah :confused: )
Orus 01-29-05, 10:09 PM	What level character do you have to make? We should try and make him an all powerful druid if there are enough levels to allow it.
Arkiana 01-29-05, 10:40 PM	Not being able to look through the DMG and the MM keeps the players from knowing things their characters should not. I've never been aloud to look up my pets stats in the MM but this is easily solved by letting the DM look at the stats ( i recomend note cards for each pet for easy access during battles ) for the pets but let the players roll for them and control them. Then the dm just tells you what happens when your wolf bites the guy (whether it looks like hard bite, how much the guy screams etc) And he is being dumb on the aspect of not allowing certain classes, or forcing characters to not play them the way they want. The only time I would ever allow a DM to overide a character class/race (and only that, skills are my business) is if there is a roleplaying reason for them not to be there. For instance the country you are starting in has been in constant warfare with orcs for years and its legal for people to kill any orc or half-orc on sight without provication then playing a half orc would not be aloud (unless they were all half orcs/ orc sympethyzers who were trying to bring down the kingdom.) All in all, i think he might be scared about DMing and having the players know more about the classes and abilities than he does. From what i see hes only outlawing things he does not understand or he thinks he cannot control, that resonates fear so anything you can do to aluviate that fear yet still have a good time will help.
HomebrewedMonster 01-30-05, 02:27 AM	I don't think your brother should be a DM, period.
Vharuck 01-30-05, 02:50 AM	hmm..... i dunno how to approach him about it though You don't. You should walk the other direction, like out the door.
Saurenda 01-30-05, 04:23 AM	Personally I think you have to accept his rules since he is Dming. If you can convince him to change his methods fine, if not leave. It seems every game you play in there are specific problems. You might want to try to Dm yourself. As for the Dms methods, I can understand how that kind astuff can get out of hand. with my conjurer I have relevant material from teh SRD copy and pasted into text documents and printed to have avilible at the time of summoning. For Druids, I myself do not like them. That is a personal view. I know people who love the druid class and swear by it and talk about nothing more than one day wildshaping into a tarsque. As a Dm would I ban them? No. I don't think he is unreasonable. Afterall you did not mention anyone leaving his group. So you've all let him know the rules are acceptible. You'll have to live with them. Talking to him and wearing him down in the longrun will just cause problems. If he has a problem with rouges stealing things, then he probably shouldn't make magicla items and pre epic gear on npcs. Who in Eberron has that kind of pre epic weaponry or items? I have Eberron mods and Campagin setting and Sharn City of Towers. The books themselves do not have such things in them, unless your in Xendrik or have been in contact with someone from Sarlona. Again I don't think he is being unreasonable. Different people different Dms. Would I tolerate this or have similar methods in my games? No. It's his game. Play or walk. You can Dm yourself, and host a game. If I can do it certainly anyone can :)
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-30-05, 09:53 PM	I agree with Saurenda. You have a problem with his restrictions. That's understandable. But, as a DM, if I have problems with a few classes, I'm not gonna allow them. It's his world, he decide. If he had changed it all mid-game, it would be stupid. But he told you before the game began, so it's ok. It's your choice. You play with this particular DM or you don't. Th choice is yours.
JSorenson1979 01-31-05, 03:48 AM	so tell me then...am I too strict a DM? or am i at least somewhat resonable. i have my own homebrew campaign world and i have a few house rules regarding characters. 1) no psionics. given the role of magic in the campaign setting, psionics dont fit into the world at all. plus i just plain dont like them. 2)players can choose from any of the standard PHB races, and a few that ive concocted. but thats it. 3) no evil or chaotic Neutral characters unless im playing a specifically evil campiagn. i like my players to work together as a team, rather than trying to constantly stab eachother in the back. 4) any multiclassing and prestige classes are subject to my approval. I usually require that players roleplay the class change when multiclassing. also if they take a prestige class...they MUST take ALL 5 or 10 levels of said class. 5)when youre in character you are IN CHARACTER....which means no outside BS at the game table. i usually allow an hours time between the beginning of the game and when most people have arrived to socialize, but once the game starts its all business...of course if players want periodic smoke/social breaks throughout the session im all for it. 6) NO METAGAMING. even though theres really nothing i can do to prevent it, since im not willing to ban players for blurting out the name of a monster or a spell once in a while. 7) no rules lawyering. i know what the rules are. if i rule that the half dragon sorceror BBEG and his lackeys get the initiative...they get the damn initiative. 8) i WILL fudge certain checks just to cut down on dice rolls. example...the party rogue wants to search the room for secret doors...i roll a search check. however, the rogue wants to search the ornate treasure chest that he has just opened for secret compartments...then i forgoe the roll and simply tell him theres a compartment if theres one to be found. since the parameters of the search are so specific, i see no reason that he shouldnt make the search check anyway. anyway...those are the only ones i can think of off the top of my head. i consider myself pretty strict, but perhaps im too strict?
Kuraito 01-31-05, 05:56 AM	People have said many things here but i shall make only one point. He has broken the first and most important rules of DMing, letting his personal feelings run the game. As DM, you have to realize that you are there as a medium for the players to work in, and as such, they may do things you PERSONALLY don't disapprove of. But regardless of personal feelings, the wellbeing of the GAME should come first and that goes for players as well. If everyone work like this the game become MUCH more fun and injoyable. If everyone has to have their way, things get ugly. Your bro seems to let his personal feelings run his world, while my DM always goes the extra mile to help my invisioned character see life, no matter how off the wall it may be. And in return we do our best not to make his job hard like asking unrealistic things. So yea, your brothers a nazi. Whenever you let your feelings run the game, your a bad DM, period. Whenever your greatly repress your players creativity, "cause you said so" your a bad DM. Also, buy him a copy of exalted deeds so he can learn what an Evil and a Good act are. Seriously, hes nuts. PALADINS are allowed to sneak attack all the live long day if they want(and have the ability), according to exalted.
Thorak 01-31-05, 07:34 AM	My takes, as a player, on your houserules; 1) no psionics. given the role of magic in the campaign setting, psionics dont fit into the world at all. plus i just plain dont like them. Okay, if I can convince you to let me play a Soulknife if I want to, just shifting it from a psionic to a magical class. No actual psionics, so if the flavour is changed, you shouldn't have a problem, right? 2)players can choose from any of the standard PHB races, and a few that ive concocted. but thats it. That's fine. If I play a monstrous character, I would be expecting to be chased out of any village by angry mobs trying to slaughter the horrible beast I appear to be anyway. That's why I don't play monstrous characters to begin with. On the other hand, if I could toss you a cool idea that wasn't too off-the-wall, like if we were starting at 5th level and I wanted to play an Awakened Wolf Barbarian, and could give you a decent background, I would hope you'd at least consider it. I mean, normal animal, PHB spell, total character level the same as the party, that's not all that bad. 3) no evil or chaotic Neutral characters unless im playing a specifically evil campiagn. i like my players to work together as a team, rather than trying to constantly stab eachother in the back. Your players are the problem, not the alignment. I guarantee I can play an evil character that will be as supportive of the party as any Good character. They're his friends. He'll slaughter the entire family of anyone who screws with his friends, though. And given the choice between himself and his friends, he'll pick himself. But he'll regret it. And I would hope you wouldn't put him in that situation to begin with. 4) any multiclassing and prestige classes are subject to my approval. I usually require that players roleplay the class change when multiclassing. also if they take a prestige class...they MUST take ALL 5 or 10 levels of said class. If by "your approval", you mean "I have to let you know my intent and RP the upcoming change", then OK. But if I want my Fighter to learn arcane magicks, you better not be forcing me not to without a darn good reason. Especially if the party has a wizard who can teach me. 5)when youre in character you are IN CHARACTER....which means no outside BS at the game table. i usually allow an hours time between the beginning of the game and when most people have arrived to socialize, but once the game starts its all business...of course if players want periodic smoke/social breaks throughout the session im all for it. This can be OK, but it depends on the group. My group, for instance, gets by perfectly fine with OOC stuff. We're all mature enough not to metagame comments by other people or take OOC stuff IC, nor do we slow the campaign down with our banter, because it's in our down-time and we're still paying attention while we do it. I've been in groups where this didn't work, though, because it quickly devolved into a useless mess. I'm not saying my group is better or worse at it, just that it works for some, and not for others. Of course, the one way I see this rule really working, and which my group does unless you very clearly state you don't really say/do what you're about to say/do first, is that once you say you're doing something, you do it. You can change your mind, but you lose the action. For instance, if you are going to try and jump on that demon's back before he flies off, you're already running. When the DM tells you it's flying away faster than you're running, you can stop. Hopefully before you jump off the cliff at it. 6) NO METAGAMING. even though theres really nothing i can do to prevent it, since im not willing to ban players for blurting out the name of a monster or a spell once in a while. Again, this comes down to the group. My group's good about it. For instance, last night we opened a coffin-like box. It was somewhat filled with coins, but had an odd layer of dirt underneath a silk lining. Now, all of us as players are saying stuff like "I wonder *coVampireugh* what this *vamphackire* could be?" But that's OOC, and we're RPing our characters as clueless. Heck, we rested in that room. 7) no rules lawyering. i know what the rules are. if i rule that the half dragon sorceror BBEG and his lackeys get the initiative...they get the damn initiative. Ah. In other words "I'll bloody well cheat if I like." If you have to resort to cheating, you're not being a very good DM. And yes, not following the rules, as the DM, is cheating, just as it is for a PC. The rules are what the players and DM have agreed upon as the system they're using. It's cheating for either to break them. 8) i WILL fudge certain checks just to cut down on dice rolls. example...the party rogue wants to search the room for secret doors...i roll a search check. however, the rogue wants to search the ornate treasure chest that he has just opened for secret compartments...then i forgoe the roll and simply tell him theres a compartment if theres one to be found. since the parameters of the search are so specific, i see no reason that he shouldnt make the search check anyway. If the rogue is pretty sure they're there and will keep looking, then fine. If it's just a cursory scan, why? anyway...those are the only ones i can think of off the top of my head. i consider myself pretty strict, but perhaps im too strict? If these are hard-and-fast, no-exceptions rules, then yes, IMHO you're too strict. And some of it is downright disturbing.
MortalPlague 01-31-05, 09:01 AM	Ah. In other words "I'll bloody well cheat if I like." If you have to resort to cheating, you're not being a very good DM. And yes, not following the rules, as the DM, is cheating, just as it is for a PC. The rules are what the players and DM have agreed upon as the system they're using. It's cheating for either to break them. As a DM, I take exception to this point. I hate rules lawyers. Sometimes when it seems like the DM is cheating, they have a perfectly good reason to do it. For instance, suddenly the ogre teleports 100 feet away. A rules lawyer might pipe up and say that ogres can't teleport, but not know that as the DM I've actually crafted up an illithid with a magical disguise, etc. It gets bad when the rules lawyer just won't let it go, and keeps insisting that the DM is cheating.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-31-05, 12:14 PM	. 1) no psionics. given the role of magic in the campaign setting, psionics dont fit into the world at all. plus i just plain dont like them. fine. If a DM got problems with certain classes, he should not allow them. I usualy don't allow classes I find unbalanced. You're the DM, you're the one who's gonna have to deal with the PC's unwanted class. Allow what you're confortable Dming, and to hell with the rest. That said, don't be afraid to try a bit of variaty sometimes... 2)players can choose from any of the standard PHB races, and a few that ive concocted. but thats it. Perfect. No more Feral half-dragon half-Tarrasques über-munchkin of doom. Beside, as it was said earlier, the typical reaction when meeting a monster is usualy along the line of Monster-shaped XP!!!! Charge!. Such a PC should have a hard time convincing angry mob not to burn him... 3) no evil or chaotic Neutral characters unless im playing a specifically evil campiagn. i like my players to work together as a team, rather than trying to constantly stab eachother in the back. Evil can work togheter as well as good. This is more of a player-dependant problem than an alignement-dependant one... 4) any multiclassing and prestige classes are subject to my approval. I usually require that players roleplay the class change when multiclassing. also if they take a prestige class...they MUST take ALL 5 or 10 levels of said class. Perfect. PC are gonna need a true role-playing reason to go into a Prc and you're gonna prevent the bane of D&D: level-dipping. 5)when youre in character you are IN CHARACTER....which means no outside BS at the game table. i usually allow an hours time between the beginning of the game and when most people have arrived to socialize, but once the game starts its all business...of course if players want periodic smoke/social breaks throughout the session im all for it. good in theory, night impossible in practice. Try to prevent the worst outburst and prevent OOC from going out of hand, but a certain amount of OOC talk and sillyness is to be expected when playing. After all, this is a game. 6) NO METAGAMING. even though theres really nothing i can do to prevent it, since im not willing to ban players for blurting out the name of a monster or a spell once in a while. Perfect in theory, hard as hell to make work. good luck. You're gonna need it. 7) no rules lawyering. i know what the rules are. if i rule that the half dragon sorceror BBEG and his lackeys get the initiative...they get the damn initiative. I agree with you. As mortal plague said, a player doesn't know everything about a given situation. More than that, it's extremely bothersome to have a clueless son-of-a-carrot-fed-hamster tell you you can't do X in your story because the precise wording of p.162 in the PHB imply the need for a CON+REF/caster level roll. 8) i WILL fudge certain checks just to cut down on dice rolls. example...the party rogue wants to search the room for secret doors...i roll a search check. however, the rogue wants to search the ornate treasure chest that he has just opened for secret compartments...then i forgoe the roll and simply tell him theres a compartment if theres one to be found. since the parameters of the search are so specific, i see no reason that he shouldnt make the search check anyway. Also fine. I want to play D&D, not throw a handfull of dice each 30 seconds. (I walk east. Ok, roll balance for your first step...)
Thorak 01-31-05, 01:30 PM	As a DM, I take exception to this point. I hate rules lawyers. Sometimes when it seems like the DM is cheating, they have a perfectly good reason to do it. For instance, suddenly the ogre teleports 100 feet away. A rules lawyer might pipe up and say that ogres can't teleport, but not know that as the DM I've actually crafted up an illithid with a magical disguise, etc. It gets bad when the rules lawyer just won't let it go, and keeps insisting that the DM is cheating. That's all fine, and I'm not saying a DM has to explain himself. I'm saying a DM shouldn't be able, to use the original example, "rule that the half dragon sorceror BBEG and his lackeys get the initiative." If the PCs all rolled between 18 and 20 for initiative, and you as the DM rolled a 2, suck it up and don't cheat. Or, to use your example, if you had the Ogre teleport away because you didn't want him to die. Even though he's a Blackguard with no magical items that cause teleport or any allies who could cast it for him. A rules lawyer isn't the guy who says "ogres can't teleport". That's the annoying twit who thinks he knows everything. A rules lawyer is the guy who says "Did the Ogre do that? Because if he had to grap an item he had stored, or cast a spell, or read a scroll, or used a spell-like ability, I get an AoO before he pops out." To which the DM says "He didn't seem to do anything that provoked an AoO", to which the rules lawyer says "Okeedokee. Just didn't want to miss a potential AoO." If you have to, as the DM, resort to cheating and "ruling" that your critters win initative and such, then your have for one, failed your friends because you've abandoned the rules they thought you were playing by to enforce your wwill, and for two have failed as a DM, because if you were doing your job right you wouldn't have to cheat. At the very least, you'd let them have the easy win, and toss in an extra encounter to make up. And if it's the BBEG they just easily slaughtered, then they beat you. Suck it up and accept it. And start thinking quickly about how to create the BBEG behind this guy. Edit: If you, as the DM, aren't going to follow the rules, then why are you even bothering playing D&D? Just go make up a story and tell it to your friends. That's what you really want to do. You certainly aren't playing a game. At least, not one you haven't unfairly stacked to go exactly the way you want it to.
Nytmare 01-31-05, 01:45 PM	What if he had instead said that he was running a game that was very strictly Lawful Neutral? A game that was set within a city and where anyone from outside the city walls was considered a filthy and savage animal. Rangers, druids, and barbarians, though they exist in the world, would have no place within the city. They are distrusted, and hated (and though no one would admit it, feared). Prejudices about outsiders abound, and anything even considered the slightest bit barbaric is avoided at all cost. Intelligence, wisdom, and dexterousness are considered to be the most important qualities in a person. Skill will always best brute force, and belief in luck is seen as simple ignorance. The city's extremely lawful nature expresses itself, not only through an unyeilding structure of rules and commandments, but also a cultural order where emotion and affection are seen as weakness and if expressed or shown in public are punishable by law. In addition, because of it's lawful nature, any spells or abilities that control or distort an individual's thoughts or memories are considered a serious and heinous crime, and are punished accordingly. =-=-=-= I think the big problem is how he explained what he wanted. It seems that he was more interested in being able to tell you what you weren't going to be able to do (Haha now we do it MY way!) as oppposed to coming up with reasons and a setting to explain the hows and whys. I also think that you maybe jumped too quickly to the defensive. I've noticed that gamers often take umbrage when they're given the slightest restrictions as to what they are or aren't allowed to play. I'm not saying his restrictions were slight by any stretch of the imagination, but if you want to play in his game, and aren't willing to play by his rules, I don't think he's the one to blame.
Adrez Nesnsid 01-31-05, 01:52 PM	no offense, but that is abusive and stupid. He has effectively nerfed EVERY class in the entire game, actually... I rephrase, he has made every class virtually UNPLAYABLE. Theoretically, if he hurts every class equally, the game should still be reasonably balanced, he just needs to treat the party as if they were one or two levels lower.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-31-05, 01:59 PM	I've noticed that gamers often take umbrage when they're given the slightest restrictions as to what they are or aren't allowed to play. I'm not saying his restrictions were slight by any stretch of the imagination, but if you want to play in his game, and aren't willing to play by his rules, I don't think he's the one to blame. Not to mention a contagious RPTD (role-playing transmited disease) called IcantsoIwantandwillitis. Those afflicted with this dread infection are incredibly susceptible to perceived threats against freedom. At the merest inkling they won't be allowed to play a certain classe/race/alignement (no matter how obscure the class), they'll just HAVE to play it. All their creativity is now utterly focused on the taboo class. for some reason, those afflicted with IcantsoIwantandwillitis are particularly attracted to the evil alignment. No evil PC might as well be a sign that say: we want EEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLL, but just write CN on your sheet. Donations to the research fund on RPTD are gladly accepted. Remember, it could happen in YOUR group...
Nytmare 01-31-05, 02:07 PM	Not to mention a contagious RPTD (role-playing transmited disease) called IcantsoIwantandwillitis. You will not believe how long I've waited for someone to come up with a name for that.
Thoronmir 01-31-05, 02:25 PM	This is a common problem with new DMs. They’ve played just enough to find a certain “groove” that feels comfortable to them. As a DM, they try to force all the other players into the same groove. Granted, this DM’s “groove” is deep and narrow … and as onerous as any I’ve ever seen. To be honest, it would have been simpler for him to set rules for what is allowed rather than what is forbidden. Like someone said, he should just pass out pregenerated PCs. I’ve butted heads with this type of DM … and I’ve been guilty of similar prejudices. I shared DM duties in my last long-term group. For almost seven years, my fellow DM and I battled over in-game issues ranging from whether a Ranger needed to worship a specific deity in order to acquire spells to whether “Bardic Music” abilities required a Bard to actually sing or play an instrument. You see, we had distinctly different visions of certain aspects of D&D. Reconciling those differences took a lot of patience and communication. I’ve been playing Rangers since 1979. Almost every Ranger I’ve played in the 25+ years since has been the conventional “lightly armored, good with a bow, woodsman/tracker, stoic leader” type. I remember my shock upon meeting a DM in college (circa 1982) who insisted that all Rangers dressed in chain mail and rode steeds to hunt down Dragons with lances. The “Ranger” he described sounded very much like my vision of a Paladin. Here I was, eager to play another Aragorn clone and he expected me to play St. George. I ended up playing a Halfling Thief. As a DM, I loathe rewriting the rules just because of a few bad experiences with players who either abused or misused the RAW. Then again, my ultimate reaction to almost a quarter-century’s experience with such players was to limit my game to the Core books. It saves everyone hassle and money since no one has to worry about what new gimmick might pop up in a new supplement that none of us want to buy anyway. The DM has overreacted by imposing his vision to the exclusion of all others. I certainly encourage you to try to assuage his concerns regarding the root causes of his draconian rules. He also must realize that it’s not very wise to construct a game world based solely on his preferences. How boring would it be if each Fighter was a clone of every other Fighter … same stats, skills, and feats? My best advice to new DMs is to start out playing with just the Core material, strictly adhering to the RAW. Once you really understand the RAW, you’re in a much better position to start injecting your own rules into the game. However, ultimately, it’s up to the player decide if he wants to play under the DM’s rules.
JSorenson1979 01-31-05, 02:43 PM	Thorak I should probably explain that my games take place in a homebrew campaign setting of my own design. there are a lot of things that work differently in this setting, such as races, certain classes, magic as a whole. So in a lot of cases, material from other campaign settings simply does not have a place. but if its something that the player really has his/her heart set on playing, and as long as its balanced ill usually try and convert it. If i was playing a forgotten realms campaign for instance, i would allow anything that is detailed in the FR source books. Except for the Tarrasque...there is NEVER a tarrasque in my campaigns. as for your soulknife character, if you were in my gaming group and this was something that you really wanted to play, I would sit down with you and try to come up with a compromise that allows the class to fit within the parameters of my campaign while still holding true to the basic concept and class features of the character class. the player races is something that i wont budge on. mostly because a lot of these concepts simply DO NOT exist in my campaign world. there are NO warforged, NO drow elves (at least not in the way they appear in the usual D&D lexicon) NO Draconians. It simply would not make any sense to have these available to players. also i HATE munchkining. just the thought of the little power-gamer ghouls staying up late into the night...pouring through obscure source books doggedly pursuing ways to make there character invincible makes me verrryyyy annnngrrryyyy!!!!!! thats being said, players in my games know not to try that because I can always come up with something even MORE uber^_^ anyway...i wouldnt allow an awakened wolf, simply because i have a playable race of wolf-like humanoids already, and in fact, im considering making Barbarian one of their preffered classes (thus far its Rgr) as far as mulitclassing goes, if youre a fighter learning to cast spells from the parties mage, or learning how to be shifty from the rogue, then i will certainly allow it. I just dont allow the Fighter1/Paladin1/Ranger1/Monk2/Rogue6/Sorceror3/Blackguard4 type of multiclassing. As far as alignments go, i dont think it actually is a player problem. i guess i just have constrictive views on good and evil, but to my mind, and also to the thinking of my players, evil and good cannot work together side by side for an extended period of time. even if an evil PC calls a truce to work with good adventures, their very core motivations are ALWAYS going to be dark and self serving. They dont have friends, they have pawns. they dont work for the good of the land, they work to concolidate and increase their own power. this is what makes them EVIL, and as such they should ALWAYS put themselves before the group, simply because they dont have the moral compass that tells them to do otherwise. playing evil is more than just acting like a brooding antihero, it means that you commit evil acts, and if it suits your purposes, youre not terribly particular about who you commit them against. I had a situation where a new player came to the group last year, and tried to play an evil character. he wasnt very subtle and the other PCs...all good aligned...subdued him and turned him in to the authorities. that kid was so angry he stormed out of my apartment and weve never heard from him again. but i would say that if people of opposed morality are playing their alignments...then thats the sort of thing that inevitably happens. which is why i discourage it as much as possible, as do my players. and anyways...im sure that their are those out there that play a CN alignment for roleplaying purposes, but in every situation ive seen personally, players seem to use it as a flimsy excuse to do whatever they want without experience penalties. now on to rules lawyering. I dont cheat against the players. Im usually rooting for the players. but they dont understand every aspect of a given situation. If the players stumble upon the BBEG and his cronies, and the bad guys get the initiative despite your +9 inish bonus, its probably because you and your cohorts were unleashing WWIII in the upper layers of the dungeon, giving ample warning to the bad guys, which gave them plenty of time to set up an ambush. i dont like rules lawyering, because it usually accompanies munchkining....and we know how i feel about munchkins. Anyway, i dont seek to arbitrarilly screw over my players, and my rulings are consistant, but i do expect them to be accepted. period. metagaming. i know it cant be stopped...its a force of nature. human nature. i guess just as long as its largely reflexive and unintentional, and the theoretical rule not blatantly disregarded, then i wouldnt be too put out. anyway...id like to believe that im a super DM and that every group should have one like me. but no matter how i try to justify it, i do put limits on what players can do with their characters, and i do not put up with BS. I guess that makes me strict, but i dont think that makes me unfair, or tyrranical.
Thoronmir 01-31-05, 04:40 PM	JSorenson ... I agree with just about everything you said. Good job.
Lord Schpungus 01-31-05, 05:44 PM	In addition, because of it's lawful nature, any spells or abilities that control or distort an individual's thoughts or memories are considered a serious and heinous crime, and are punished accordingly. Actually, a LN society would be one of the most likely to promote and even use mind-altering effects. A society where everyone thinks the same thing, whether they want to or not, is one where there is no disorder.
Psimind25 01-31-05, 09:57 PM	Now im considering a Warforged Artificer ill name bender. Bender: *uses Heat Metal Wand on Iron Golem* Bender: (Has on ring of Elemental Control (Fire) and Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, and had used a Bull's Strength wand in an earlier round) *Initiates a Grapple and begins to try and Bend and reshape the Golem* "You're Pending....For a Bending!
Nytmare 01-31-05, 11:17 PM	Actually, a LN society would be one of the most likely to promote and even use mind-altering effects. I could see that in some Lawful societies, but even then it would be something used expressly by the powers that be, any other use would be likened to vigilantism.
Thorak 02-01-05, 01:32 AM	Thorak I should probably explain that my games take place in a homebrew campaign setting of my own design. there are a lot of things that work differently in this setting, such as races, certain classes, magic as a whole. So in a lot of cases, material from other campaign settings simply does not have a place. but if its something that the player really has his/her heart set on playing, and as long as its balanced ill usually try and convert it. If i was playing a forgotten realms campaign for instance, i would allow anything that is detailed in the FR source books. Except for the Tarrasque...there is NEVER a tarrasque in my campaigns. That's fine. I'm used to homebrew games, and the many changes that go along with them. I can accept reasonable limitations on characters. I have issues with ones that seem petty. I could, for instance, understand a DM saying "No races beyond PHB core races". I'd have a problem with a DM saying "Anything you want, except Thri-kreen, because they bug me." Especially if I suck it up and make a human monk, only to find that he allowed someone else to make an Insectile Feral Minotaur. Consistency GOOD. as for your soulknife character, if you were in my gaming group and this was something that you really wanted to play, I would sit down with you and try to come up with a compromise that allows the class to fit within the parameters of my campaign while still holding true to the basic concept and class features of the character class. That's all I ever ask. The only time I've actually considered a soulknife was in an "I want a guy that can run on walls like the new Prince of Persia games" kick, where the actual class features were just a different take on the basis, and I needed a psionic class to get the psionic Up the Walls feat. If you were willing to work something else out to fit my concept, I'd be happy. Like I said, I understand a DM saying "I don't use Psionics." I would have a problem with a DM saying "I use psionics, but you're not playing a Psychic Warrior, and I'm reducing your power points by half if you play one." the player races is something that i wont budge on. mostly because a lot of these concepts simply DO NOT exist in my campaign world. there are NO warforged, NO drow elves (at least not in the way they appear in the usual D&D lexicon) NO Draconians. It simply would not make any sense to have these available to players. also i HATE munchkining. just the thought of the little power-gamer ghouls staying up late into the night...pouring through obscure source books doggedly pursuing ways to make there character invincible makes me verrryyyy annnngrrryyyy!!!!!! thats being said, players in my games know not to try that because I can always come up with something even MORE uber^_^ anyway...i wouldnt allow an awakened wolf, simply because i have a playable race of wolf-like humanoids already, and in fact, im considering making Barbarian one of their preffered classes (thus far its Rgr) Again, all fine. I'm talking about abusive stuff. Though the point of my wolf idea was that he wasn't even remotely humanoid. He's a wolf. He's intelligent and can speak, but that's as close to humanoid as he gets. But I digress, since I'm not going to be playing in that world anyway :P as far as mulitclassing goes, if youre a fighter learning to cast spells from the parties mage, or learning how to be shifty from the rogue, then i will certainly allow it. I just dont allow the Fighter1/Paladin1/Ranger1/Monk2/Rogue6/Sorceror3/Blackguard4 type of multiclassing. This is something I agree with myself, though more so with prestige class cherrypicking than core classes. I could see someone taking a bunch of different core classes, maybe. But not some of the builds I see on the Character Optimization boards that have something like 5 PrCs slapped on for a level or two. As far as alignments go, i dont think it actually is a player problem. i guess i just have constrictive views on good and evil, but to my mind, and also to the thinking of my players, evil and good cannot work together side by side for an extended period of time. even if an evil PC calls a truce to work with good adventures, their very core motivations are ALWAYS going to be dark and self serving. They dont have friends, they have pawns. they dont work for the good of the land, they work to concolidate and increase their own power. this is what makes them EVIL, and as such they should ALWAYS put themselves before the group, simply because they dont have the moral compass that tells them to do otherwise. playing evil is more than just acting like a brooding antihero, it means that you commit evil acts, and if it suits your purposes, youre not terribly particular about who you commit them against. I had a situation where a new player came to the group last year, and tried to play an evil character. he wasnt very subtle and the other PCs...all good aligned...subdued him and turned him in to the authorities. that kid was so angry he stormed out of my apartment and weve never heard from him again. but i would say that if people of opposed morality are playing their alignments...then thats the sort of thing that inevitably happens. which is why i discourage it as much as possible, as do my players. and anyways...im sure that their are those out there that play a CN alignment for roleplaying purposes, but in every situation ive seen personally, players seem to use it as a flimsy excuse to do whatever they want without experience penalties. An example of an evil character that works well in a group; LE Wizard. He's self-serving. But he knows he's vulnerable. He also knows the most cost-efficient way to get protection is to have friends. So he chums it up with these burly types that make up the party, because they'll be between him and the nasties. And besides, his share of a group's earnings are likely to be more than what he could earn himself in the same time, and if he's the only arcane caster, that means his share will be the stuff he really wants. He's not about to screw to party; he's put WAAY too much time and effort in cultivating their good feelings towards him. They're free mercenaries, and he doesn't have to worry about them betraying him for a paycheck, because he knows they're noble. They're his support system and key to power. As such, if anyone screws with that, he's going to make sure they hurt. If anything, a Good party will have problems with an evil character, rather than the other way around. It's not like being kind is directly offensive to evil people. Unlike being cruel, to a good-hearted person. A smart Evil guy, though, knows this and tones it down when the party might find out. Because, like I said, he's invested too much in a good thing to risk it. This is more an evil as in self-serving than evil as in baby-eating horrors, but it's still evil. I'm not saying all evil characters can work, or that all players should be allowed. Just that it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as an option. Good examples from fiction and D&D that fit this dynamic are Raistlin and the rest of Dragonlance fame, or C.S. Friedman's Coldfire trilogy, which have a priest and his version of Satan team up to fight a greater evil. now on to rules lawyering. I dont cheat against the players. Im usually rooting for the players. but they dont understand every aspect of a given situation. If the players stumble upon the BBEG and his cronies, and the bad guys get the initiative despite your +9 inish bonus, its probably because you and your cohorts were unleashing WWIII in the upper layers of the dungeon, giving ample warning to the bad guys, which gave them plenty of time to set up an ambush. i dont like rules lawyering, because it usually accompanies munchkining....and we know how i feel about munchkins. Anyway, i dont seek to arbitrarilly screw over my players, and my rulings are consistant, but i do expect them to be accepted. period. In this example, the reason the BBEG and cronies get initiative is because they surprised the party and were expecting them. It's a good, rules-supported reason. I'm just talking about entire fudges. I've had a DM pull a "uhh, he, errr, snaps his finger and vanishes, as the dragon's breath hits him, even though it would reduce him to well below -30 if it hit." That was BS, and done because he wanted the BBEG to survive. Even though the party had done some brilliant tactical moves that utterly slaughtered him in that encounter. Similar things are things like "he shimmers and fades, he was just an illusion..." or "He runs away". The latter, when he's in heavy armour, and the party could easily outpace him. anyway...id like to believe that im a super DM and that every group should have one like me. but no matter how i try to justify it, i do put limits on what players can do with their characters, and i do not put up with BS. I guess that makes me strict, but i dont think that makes me unfair, or tyrranical. I don't think, in your case, that you're being unfair. I think I've highlighted the ways in which the steps you take could go too far, which is what I'm talking about.
allenchan 02-01-05, 01:51 AM	I have issues with ones that seem petty. I could, for instance, understand a DM saying "No races beyond PHB core races". I'd have a problem with a DM saying "Anything you want, except Thri-kreen, because they bug me." Did you mean for that play on words? I found it hilarious :P
Amryll 02-01-05, 07:03 AM	well i think the OPs dm is crappy. kinda like the one i had for a long while.with things like "you die" or "he wins". and the "why is the CR 17 whate dragon on us? we are level 2? " the "cuz i say so" answers make me mad.like when i wanted to play a wyrmling dragon,he said no, i asked why, he said cuz i wouldnt fit in rooms, i pointed out i was tiny size.awkward silence, he comes off with people will hate you, you are a dragon. i pointed out i wanted a copper, and that from past xp, people in the world recognize the difference between good and evil dragons,and i had enough ranks in disguise to pass as a lizard just incase. awkward silence. youre too strong, i say my ecl is 7, the party is lvl 13.silence, you need a story.., you read that right before i asked.well i say you can and im the dm so you cant. his only reason for not letting me, was so he could ruin my hope of playing a dragon.and that was the answer i got from him later.that kinda thing is crap.had he given a reason thatmade sense id have stopped, well no, cuz i knew what he was doing but still.and the wizard hits with a roll of 12, the fighter misses with 18 is just wrong...
Thorak 02-01-05, 09:11 AM	Did you mean for that play on words? I found it hilarious :P If I were ever punished For every little pun I shed I'd hide me to a punny shed And there I'd hang my punnish head. - Samuel Johnson.
waqqif 02-01-05, 10:47 AM	hi -No minions can be used (Arcane is forbidden from the Conjuration school, as psions are forbidden the Metacreativity disipline. also druids and rangers not allowed. as he does not want to put up with summons, Astral Constructs, nature's ally, or animal companions. this also includes the leadership feat for followers and Cohorts)..) If he doesn`tr want to mess up with these things, i wouldn`t say anything against that. -Fighters may not use "barbaric weapons" (defied as Greatswords, Greataxes, throwing axes) The Greataxes also called Poleaxe is a knightly weapon(preferred weapon for fighting on foot), the Greatsword is the weapon of the elite mercfs called doppelsoldner. fighters may not put their biggest scores in Str and Con and Neglect Int and Dex. also feats like cleve. if you do, he will force you to be a Barbarian. he elieves fighters are cold and calculating graful fighters who only use cunning tactics/feats and small elegant weapon that net more damage rather than gross like barbarians. Could it be possible he meansFighter = swashbuckling fop? Oh andforcingStats featsandsoon,Heisn`t playing thePCs, so he has no say how another player, plays or builts his char. FIAT
Saurenda 02-01-05, 11:07 AM	Now im considering a Warforged Artificer ill name bender. Bender: *uses Heat Metal Wand on Iron Golem* Bender: (Has on ring of Elemental Control (Fire) and Gauntlets of Ogre Strength, and had used a Bull's Strength wand in an earlier round) *Initiates a Grapple and begins to try and Bend and reshape the Golem* "You're Pending....For a Bending! WOW. I have never lost all respect for someone in the way I just did now for you. I hope someone grabs his crotch, and uses rusting grasp. Bend this :P
e-z0r 02-01-05, 11:35 AM	WOW. I have never lost all respect for someone in the way I just did now for you. I hope someone grabs his crotch, and uses rusting grasp. Bend this :P I don't think he was all that serious, y'know?
IndyPendant 02-01-05, 02:54 PM	Four words. Get. A. New. DM.
Rerednaw 02-01-05, 05:35 PM	Actually I have a few observations. Perhaps your brother has had bad experiences as a player and doesn't want those mistakes made by his DM to carry over in his game. Running tons of minions is a pain. But then if a player summons a minion, I make him play it. If he doesn't have a set of stats ready, he skips his turn while I go to the next player. As a DM he will have to get used to running several sets of characters/mobs at once. It is just how it is. Perhaps sticking with Core Modules may make the game easier. In addition, given the kinds of builds I've seen suggested, it is apparent that he and you have some experience with min-maxing. Perhaps his powering down the game has to do with prior experiences where min-maxed players completely dominated the game. Although using Eberron doesn't seem to support the lower power theory. And his comments about the weakness of druids probably means he hasn't run into a normal (by the book) druid that is run by an intelligent player. Bottom line though, it is his game. Maybe the house rules are a bit harsher, but if you really do not like his world then you really need to find a new game. Or even better, run one of your own. Have him play in your game, perhaps it will help both sides here.
Darth K'Trava 02-01-05, 06:39 PM	well ive tried talking with him, he says his real issue with summons is he doesnt want to have to control all the stuff you summon, he says its straining to the dm. That's YOUR job, not his to deal with creatures you summon. he also says he just never cared for druids, because hes never seen a point behind him. he thinks they are kind of "Gimped" or "underpowered" and they need rework come 4th ed. Obviously he's never been here where people have :censored:ed about how overpowered they are (behind the :censored:ing abt the cleric). he just dont like bards very much as they are "no good in a war." Maybe not, but they're fine for a support character. They usually bolster the party and weaken the enemy. his thing with fighters, is he would like someone to rp a fighter like semi-intelligent rather than a Barbarian with a lot of feats and no rage. he says theres really no point. butr im trying to work with him. Hate to tell him, but there's many types of fighters. Not just whether one is smart or dumb. There is a difference between them and barbarians.
Super_Demolition_Christ 02-01-05, 07:24 PM	as for the Mind affecting thing. Indeed a city where a powerful Wizard/bard is controling a city through mind bending would be an exeltent quest. however, If he can stand some more negotiations, paint the image for him of two armies, one a mass of undead and vampires, the other fighters, paladins and clerics charging into the fray. The warriors fight hard, but the endless assault of the undead is to much. The fighter's partner falls in battle and black wizard on battlefield raises him to fight his former friend. The battle turns in favor of the undead, pushing back the mortals and killing many. But then, up steps the bard. He beggins to sing a balad about the great hero's of old. every warrior on the battlefield is reminded of whom they are protecting, and of the joys of life. Hope fills their hearts and the turn to meet their foes, taking out the enemy through the force of moral alone. What I love about the bard, is howthe music is magic. people speak of how music can change someone, bring hope of despair, or remind someone of that one time back then. The bard is deffinately the most romantic class oh, and as for the intelligent fighter. Has he seen the "swashbuckler" its basically a fighter that relies on intelligence and finesse. The Fighter is just the generic warrior. He can be a crafty duelist, a lumbering juggernaut, a skilled archer, or a valient dragoon. It all depends on the feats he takes
JSorenson1979 02-03-05, 10:50 AM	Thorak, now that youve explained the awakened wolf concept I actually think that its a really cool idea, and would make for a great character. I would certainly allow it...even encourage it. I think that the wolf character would be at a serious disadvantage in some respects, but i tend to award players who take a serious nerfing with their characters for roleplaying purposes, since as a DM im pretty story and RP driven. for the soulknife character, running along the walls is a cool ability, but hopefully you wouldnt take the class JUST for that purpose. especially since i would rule that any character can do that with a proper balance check. the DC would be tough though. I tend to like cinematic, cartoonish, over-the-top action, so i give my players a bit of leeway with what they can accomplish physically under their own power. anyway...youve made some valid points, and i appreciate your imput. should you ever find yourself in the Portland, OR area consider yourself welcome to sit in on my group any time, I promise that we're a good bunch. Soren
JSorenson1979 02-03-05, 11:06 AM	oh also, with the scenario you described about the BBEG snapping his fingers and disappearing from the fray as soon as the dragons breath engulfed him, i could see that happening with a contigency spell. a lot of my powerful NPC magic users have contigency spells that allow them to teleport to safety when they take enough wounds. I dont do this to screw with PCs mind you...this is simply what i would do if I were in the BBEG's shoes. every wizard worth his/her spell components should have at least a couple escape routes. so its not all too inconceivable, that if said BBEG is engulfed in dragons breath, it may indeed trigger the teleport contigency. the only problem is that by the time the BBEG gets to where he/she is going, said NPC would STILL be reduced to sizzling, well done, flame broiled wizard meat, just in a safer location. lol In one campaign that i ran, a similar wizard was getting the crap beat out of him by the PCs...he got knocked down to about 10% of his HP, which triggered a teleport contigency set to take him to his lair in an emergency. on a lark, i rolled percentage die on a 50/50 chance. turns out his steward and maidservants decided to take advantage of his weakened state and knife him to death because they coveted the NPCs fortune. the players had no idea until several months later. not to worry though...players still got full XP for the encounter. Soren
MoogleEmpMog 02-03-05, 12:40 PM	Soren, Overall, I don't have a problem with your houserules. They seem fairly standard, and you to be quite willing to bend them if a player provides a good reason. About the only thing I strongly disagree with is your multiclassing restriction. "Wizard/Monk/Rogue/Shou Disciple/Eldritch Knight/Arcane Trickster" may appear on a character sheet, but why is it any different to the character than "Druid?" Why should the character, or indeed any character, know that he has a "class" at all? Aside from that, it sounds like you're running a fun campaign. Good luck with it.
JSorenson1979 02-04-05, 05:28 AM	MoogleEMPmog you're right, hypothetically if there were such as world as those we set our campaigns in, there would BE no such thing as set "classes." this is a problem that ive always had with D20, the whole class and level system. i really do think that players should be able to play whatever damn character they want, the reason i restrict multi-classing is for balance issues. this is why i wish that D&D were more skill based. Ive been working on some ideas to alter D20 in such a way, but if any of you have found a good system for a skill based D&D that isnt GURPS i would welcome your imput. alternately, ive been working on a new rule system thats a cross between the white wolf games (without the eye-liner and bad poetry feel) and D20. ive got most of the system pretty well figured out, but it definitely needs some fine tuning.
Doug McCrae 02-04-05, 09:44 AM	Yes.
MoogleEmpMog 02-04-05, 01:25 PM	MoogleEMPmog you're right, hypothetically if there were such as world as those we set our campaigns in, there would BE no such thing as set "classes." this is a problem that ive always had with D20, the whole class and level system. i really do think that players should be able to play whatever damn character they want, the reason i restrict multi-classing is for balance issues. this is why i wish that D&D were more skill based. Ive been working on some ideas to alter D20 in such a way, but if any of you have found a good system for a skill based D&D that isnt GURPS i would welcome your imput. alternately, ive been working on a new rule system thats a cross between the white wolf games (without the eye-liner and bad poetry feel) and D20. ive got most of the system pretty well figured out, but it definitely needs some fine tuning. Well, 90% of all multiclassed characters are significantly weaker than a core druid, so I don't worry about the balance aspect. The one I gave you, for example, would be weaker at 20th level than a core-only fighter who decided to skip the spiked chain in favor of the short sword for flavor reasons. :cool: As for a good skill-based system, not so much for D&D-style games but for RPGs in general, I'm a big fan of Dream Pod 9's Silhouette Core system. Skill-based, extremely elegant, simple but with a lot of room for complexity, and even fairly extensive rules for converting to and from d20. It's "grittier" than D&D, however - characters either don't gain more health as they gain experience, or they gain it very slowly, so combat can be quite lethal.
JSorenson1979 02-04-05, 03:40 PM	MoogleEmpMog, i agree with you about multiclassing. a 10thftr/10thsor would be nowhere near as powerful as either a 20th lvl fighter or a 20th lvl sorceror, or as you said, a 20th lvl druid (which, in my opinion is probably the most powerful and well rounded core class in the game, but very difficult to pull off as a PC. Bards are no slouches either.) my restriction of multiclasses has 2 main reasons...1st, roleplay. since im a very story driven DM, i like players to have a strong concept in mind for their characters, with this in mind, i usually afford them some leeway in what their characters can do. im usually more than willing to let players swap some class skills for another, or even take on an ability of another class as a feat. (for instance i had a player who wanted his Ranger character to be able to sneak attack with his bow. he could have multiclassed as a rogue, but that would have meant giving up certain ranger abilities that he wanted. also, from a roleplaying perspective the player didnt think that this choice would make sense for his character. so i decided that the ranger could take sneak attack as his combat style in lieu of those offered in the PHB. he would have 1d6 at 2nd level, 2d6 at 6th level, and 3d6 at 11th level) the other reason, as stated before, is balance. I dont like it when players try to twink their characters to be invulnerable using rules from obscure sourcebooks and other errata. I can understand the appeal of this for players, as ive seen a lot of strategic character builds that were very clever and unique. but ive also seen a lot of campaigns destroyed by power gaming. besides, PCs arent supposed to be invulnerable, and theyre not supposed to be good at EVERYTHING. each player is a part of a team, and each has strengths and weaknesses. Its not some obscure feat suggested in dragon magazine thats going to compensate for this weakness, its the other members of your party. plus, my rules are a two way street. any rule that the players can take advantage of, the villians can as well. and vice versa. And since I dont make ultra twinked NPCs, and dont see why i should let players. but again, im always flexible...if a player wants to do something with his character and gives me a compelling enough reason, i will allow it. my ultimate goal as DM is to make sure that my players are having a good time. I guess i just believe that players can have as much fun running away from things as they do plowing through dungeons and indiscriminately slaughtering everything i throw at them. hehehehheh anyway, everyone has their own gaming style, and thats just mine. i do appreciate everyones input and look forward to more in the future. Soren
kallisti23 02-05-05, 02:03 AM	Your DM sounds a lot like my DM. My DM doesn't allow clerics or paladins to turn undead, he doesn't allow monks to have their full array of special abilities, he doesn't allow rangers or paladins to cast spells, and the list goes on and on. But alas, there's rule zero; he's the DM and he can run the game as he sees fit. Aside from all his stupid and arbitrary house rules, he's a decent DM, so I just deal with it. Maybe you should find a new game to play in, or try taking your turn in the DM's chair. That's about all you can do.
Rerednaw 02-07-05, 11:03 AM	MoogleEMPmog Ive been working on some ideas to alter D20 in such a way, but if any of you have found a good system for a skill based D&D that isnt GURPS i would welcome your imput. alternately, ive been working on a new rule system thats a cross between the white wolf games (without the eye-liner and bad poetry feel) and D20. ive got most of the system pretty well figured out, but it definitely needs some fine tuning. A bit off-topic but... Runequest. No levels, no classes. There are skills that are linked to professions, but only for background purposes. In other words you are free to teach anyone any skills you possess. But barbarians do not start with Read/Write Language the same way that a person who focused on melee doesn't start with (high) Magic skills. But the mage can become almost just as good as a melee in fighting and the melee can become just about as good as the mage in casting. And the Barbarian can become fluent in 10 languages if he wants to. The only limitations are basically racial maximums on stats and whatever you decide to specialize in. They determine skill caps.
Rerednaw 02-07-05, 11:06 AM	Your DM sounds a lot like my DM. My DM doesn't allow clerics or paladins to turn undead, he doesn't allow monks to have their full array of special abilities, he doesn't allow rangers or paladins to cast spells, and the list goes on and on. But alas, there's rule zero; he's the DM and he can run the game as he sees fit. Aside from all his stupid and arbitrary house rules, he's a decent DM, so I just deal with it. Maybe you should find a new game to play in, or try taking your turn in the DM's chair. That's about all you can do. Sounds like your DM has created a lot of work for himself. He has to go and modify most of the Monster entries, their abilities and if he ever uses a published module most of the challenges within have to be changed as well. If he hasn't then your party should be getting much more experience and levelling like crazy (if you survive).
Psimind25 02-07-05, 08:01 PM	im actually going to try runnig a game of something, to see if i can do better than my brother.... maybe not D&D per se, like, im gonna try BESM, but add D&D stuff to it.