Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 awarl Jan 30, 2011 13:50:48	We are currently in the middle of a campaign and the DM let me change to a new character, as I wasn't enjoying playing my old one. But now there's an issue... I decided to play a seeker (starting at lvl 5), and picked Weapon Proficiency (Greatbow) as my first feat. The DM has said that he isn't sure he wants me to be able to use a greatbow, citing his right as DM to ban things that don't fit the game. The main reasons that he has mentioned for this are: 1. If I had had the feat at lvl 1 I would have had a hard time, as I wouldn't have had a weapon focus feat (he might have meant expertise). 2. The ranger of the group doesn't have a greatbow (he still uses a longbow), and the DM doesn't feel that it's appropriate that a controller has a "bigger and better" bow than a striker from a roleplaying standpoint. I obviously can't do much about #1, although for what it's worth I'm fairly certain that I would have chosen the same feat if I had started the character at lvl 1. As for #2 my personal feelings are that controller and striker are gaming terms and, along with how much damage a character does, has little to do with roleplaying. To me a ranger and a seeker should be roughly equivalent when it comes to skill with the bow, and the only difference between the two characters mentioned is that one character has spent time learning how to use a greatbow and the other one hasn't. After making my points and saying why I disagree the DM responded with "Do whatever the hell you want. I don't care" and that DMing is annoying enough as it is. Part of this might be because he doesn't seem to be enjoying being DM at the moment, mostly waiting for the current adventure to end so someone else can take over after that. On the whole the feat isn't a necessity for the character, it's just something I would have liked to have, partly for the stats and partly because I tend to get attached to the characters I make and it feels like removing the feat would somehow ruin the character I had in mind, if that makes any sense. So, am I wrong for pushing to get the feat? I'm fairly new to roleplaying in general and D&D in particular, so I'm having a bit of trouble accepting this whole thing with the DM's word being law. Thanks in advance for any replies. (Apologies if this is a bit wordy, it ended up longer than I thought it would be.)
#2 salla Jan 30, 2011 14:15:13	I personally don't feel your DM's complaints have any merit whatsoever.
#3 slobo777a Jan 30, 2011 14:30:35	That seems like an unreasonably grumpy response from your DM. One small feat being allowed or not should not be a big issue - either for you, or for the DM. It's just petty. If your character is legal, you are playing a race and class that fits with the game world, and you have not found some cheesy over-optimised exploits to play, then I don't see from your description what the issue could be. The Seeker and Ranger do such different things that comparing types of weapon is not very meaningful. I bet the Ranger still hits more often and for more damage for a start. On the other hand, the DM does appear to be trying to take an interest in the new character, and fitting it with the game world. His and your opinions are not always going to be the same. For the sake of a few more sessions before a different DM takes over, you could take the moral high ground, switch the feat (and signature weapon for the Seeker) and just try to have fun without the arguments.
#4 Neutronium_Dragon Jan 30, 2011 14:35:05	Salla's statement is seconded, and to add some detail... > 1. If I had had the feat at lvl 1 I would have had a hard time, as I wouldn't > have had a weapon focus feat (he might have meant expertise). If you're taking a weapon proficiency feat then 1st or 2nd level is the normal time to take it. It'll help more than would weapon focus, and expertise isn't critical enough at 1st level that not having it would cripple you. > 2. The ranger of the group doesn't have a greatbow (he still uses a longbow), > and the DM doesn't feel that it's appropriate that a controller has a "bigger > and better" bow than a striker from a roleplaying standpoint. So is it equally bad that the fighter (a defender) has the bigger-better longsword while the rogue (a striker) only has a dagger? (Apart from which, a ranger wanting top damage goes with a superior crossbow. A ranger is best off with a greatbow when he's optimizing for control. Funny, that...) Edit: Of course, there's also the minor point that, whether or not the seeker has a greatbow, the ranger could be throwing tiddlywinks at a target and still out-damage him.
#5 brassbaboon Jan 30, 2011 15:37:31	I personally don't feel your DM's complaints have any merit whatsoever. this
#6 Nyarlathotep Jan 30, 2011 15:53:17	The thing about #2 is that if you are doing better damage than the archer ranger, even with a great bow, the Ranger is doing it wrong.  The Greatbow does more damage than the Longbow, but the difference isn't that much.  On average, about 1 point per hit.  It's not like you are suddenly going to be outshining the ranger just by taking it Point #1 doesn't make any sense either.  You can make a 1st level character just fine without weapon focus or expertise.  It's only at Paragon level they move from 'worth taking but not necessary' to 'you are screwing yourself if you don't take this feat' range. You have a huge bow and do magical type things with it.  The ranger has a smaller bow and is able to to shoot faster/more accurately.  If the Ranger has Greatbow Envy, he is perfectly welcome to get one as well.  I don't see your DM's issue.
#7 Fireclave Jan 30, 2011 17:01:16	Not much to say that hasn't already been said.  Your DM's complaints really don't hold water at all.
#8 Krusk Jan 30, 2011 17:36:35	1- Feat choices are really your area, not the DMs. you ought to get to chose which ones you want or don't. I guess take that second feat they really want you to have as your second level feat? Alternatively, take it at level 1 and then take weapon prof as your next feat. Then utilize the retraining rules in the PHB, and swap your feats so that you have weapon focus with the greatbow. 2- Tell him to talk to the striker about that. Citing "Its not my fault he doesn't use a good bow." Although the line "Do whatever you want" to me says the DM gave in and you should be good to go. In the end, no you are not at all in the wrong. DMs word being law. Show Not at all the case. Don't let anyone tell you differently. A lot of "Old school" players think this way, and it was the playstyle back in the day. It stems from the older books saying things like "DM your word is law, and your goal is to kill every PC every dungeon". This sort of thing was tolerated because the DM was typically the only one to own the books, and the rules were hardly solid. They took pages and pages of house rules to make any sense out of them, and so typically the DM was the only one who knew the rules. There were hardly any other groups in town, and so you couldn't run it past other players in different games and check, there wasn't an internet to check, and you couldn't quit and DM yourself because books were harder to come by, and again, you had to write half the system yourself anyway. If you don't have experience that is hard to do. Now adays, the rules are solid and fairly straight forward, and every player is encouraged to buy their own copy. Plus with a lot more groups around, you can tell a "DM word is law" DM where to stick it, and find a new group or start your own.
#9 house88 Jan 30, 2011 20:49:42	This doesn't seem like a legit complaint and Seekers are one of the last classes that need to be nerfed.
#10 chanter_hound Jan 30, 2011 22:50:49	Nope, I'd have to agree with Sally and BB on this. Your DM suffers from one of the ailments I loath.. Illogically restrictions. I hate being restricted illogically. Like my current DM, won't allow me to play warforged. Not really a problem as I don't really want to play them myself either. But his two complaints against them is that he doesn't like robots, and that he would have to rewrite the entire campaign setting to even allow them in. Now I don't know about other peoples campaigns, but ours is a write as you go style, and a slightly shared world with DM and players. So basically there isn't really much of a "campaign setting" to even rewrite. And besides, if there was any thing that needed to be written, I can easily come up with something. For some reason I think he feels that they have to have all thier ebberon fluff interjected into the campaign thus the rewrite, when it could be easily something along the lines of hundreds of stories about an inanimate object coming to life due to a wish upon a star. And then his "don't like robots" just sounds ignorate to me. A warforged doesn't have to be "the terminator" it could just as easially be pinocico and flaught around that he is a real boy or whatever. Nevermind though what I do get to play (Lupin necromancers who are seeking a necronomicon and libre mortis among other necromantic artifacts. Granted my current character is only an agent for the necromancers)
#11 bronski113 Jan 31, 2011 1:37:47	As it has been said the DM's complaints don't have any merit.  If the ability is available to the ranger to use the Greatbow and he didn't take it then that is the Ranger's problem.   When I work up characters I almost always take a superior weapon feat at level one unless there is another feat that would benefit me more.  I always take it especially if the weapon is a defining feature of the character. In regard to what chanter_hound mentioned about being restricted illogically:  If I had excluded a race (which could change a setting) and a player wanted to play the excluded race I would ask them to think up a way for the excluded race to fit in.  They might think up something cool that I wouldn't have come up with.  I try to follow the idea that Roleplaying beats all as much as I can.
#12 Pashalik_Mons Jan 31, 2011 1:37:53	We are currently in the middle of a campaign and the DM let me change to a new character, as I wasn't enjoying playing my old one. But now there's an issue... I decided to play a seeker (starting at lvl 5), and picked Weapon Proficiency (Greatbow) as my first feat. The DM has said that he isn't sure he wants me to be able to use a greatbow, citing his right as DM to ban things that don't fit the game. While I agree with the idea that a DM should have the right to ban elements that don't fit the game, the right should only be invoked after every attempt has been made to find a way for the element to fit the game.  In addition, you'd need to actually have a reason that it doesn't fit the game, which he does not. The main reasons that he has mentioned for this are: 1. If I had had the feat at lvl 1 I would have had a hard time, as I wouldn't have had a weapon focus feat (he might have meant expertise). This is bunk on two levels.  Firstly, as others have mentioned, Weapon Proficiency is a perfectly legit first level feat choice, that would not at all result in you having a hard time.  Secondly, it absolutely, positively does not matter whether or not your character would have had a hard time at level 1, because you are starting at level 5.  Your Seeker will never be, and arguably never was level 1. 2. The ranger of the group doesn't have a greatbow (he still uses a longbow), and the DM doesn't feel that it's appropriate that a controller has a "bigger and better" bow than a striker from a roleplaying standpoint. First, this is not your DM's business.  If the Ranger has a problem with it, the issue is between the two of you, and does not involve the Dm unless one of you calls on him to arbitrate the issue.  And if the Ranger did have a problem with it, the best answer would be for him to take the feat and get his own greatbow.  Secondly, terms like Striker and Controller are mechanical labels which serve to outline to players what the class is best at, mechanically.  There is no inherent roleplaying element to them.  From a roleplaying perspective, you're both archers(presumably), with no reason that one archer should be better than the other. I obviously can't do much about #1, although for what it's worth I'm fairly certain that I would have chosen the same feat if I had started the character at lvl 1. As for #2 my personal feelings are that controller and striker are gaming terms and, along with how much damage a character does, has little to do with roleplaying. To me a ranger and a seeker should be roughly equivalent when it comes to skill with the bow, and the only difference between the two characters mentioned is that one character has spent time learning how to use a greatbow and the other one hasn't. After making my points and saying why I disagree the DM responded with "Do whatever the hell you want. I don't care" and that DMing is annoying enough as it is. Part of this might be because he doesn't seem to be enjoying being DM at the moment, mostly waiting for the current adventure to end so someone else can take over after that. On the whole the feat isn't a necessity for the character, it's just something I would have liked to have, partly for the stats and partly because I tend to get attached to the characters I make and it feels like removing the feat would somehow ruin the character I had in mind, if that makes any sense. ITT: Pash doesn't read the whole post before beginning his reply, and feels foolish for it. So, am I wrong for pushing to get the feat? I'm fairly new to roleplaying in general and D&D in particular, so I'm having a bit of trouble accepting this whole thing with the DM's word being law. Thanks in advance for any replies. (Apologies if this is a bit wordy, it ended up longer than I thought it would be.) You're not wrong to want the feat.  There's no legitimate reason for you not to have it.