- Only allowed material (powers, races, classes, etc) from the PHBs 1-3, Power books, 2 racial books, heroes of feywield/Elemental and Dungeon Survival, AVs, Mordenkainen's.
- Definitvely nothing from Dragon Magazines, Essentials stuff or settings books.
- Despite this, we are to use the online compendium errata'd versions of what we find in the allowed sources.
- Also, monsters will almost all be from the newer thougher variety from MM3, Vault and Demonomicon.
- Minions take two hits to kill unless one does 6/8/10+Lvl damage to them by tier.
- No rare items and no themes.
- The only enchanted items one can buy are vanilla magical items (+1 and so on) of his own level and below
- However one can instantly upgrade whatever magical items he has in his possession if he has the gold (no need to be in a store even)
- One can hand in a wishlist to be subject to DM fiat
- Level up occurs ever 4-6 sessions instead of being experience based.
Sounds like I'm heading towards a massacre! Any tips?
The way you handle it is to talk to the DM. If you can give playing that way an honest try first, you'll be better equipped to hold that conversation - or you may find you're okay with those restrictions.
It sounds like the DM doesn't trust the players. That's unfortunate, but understandable. Do what you can to earn their trust. Trying to get out from under or around the restrictions (apart from though a civil, honest discussion) probably won't earn much trust.
It also sounds like the DM is after a very specific atmosphere for the game. This might, in fact, involve regular character death. Sounds like you're not on-board with the DM's idea of a game, and I don't get the impression that it was discussed with the players, apart from handing out these rules.
So, talk to him. Get on the same page with him and the other players, and leave the game if it doesn't suit you.
I don't know why DMs bring in restrictions on source material (no Dragon, Essentials, etc.) unless it's not setting appropriate (if you want to play a Paladin in Dark Sun, you might have to reflavour it a bit). It's not like using a power from Dragon is going to break the game. Maybe it would be worth at least asking him why he's banning Dragon, Essentials, etc. To be honest, it sounds like a sign of a control freak DM.
The "two-hit kill" on a minion thing just seems odd. The whole point of a minion is that they are mooks who can be taken out in one hit. I can imagine "tough minions" from time to time with damage resistance or a "save me" button, but as a houserule in general it just seems pointless. My theory on houserules is that if a houserule is implemented for no reason other than "realism," it automatically sucks.
Anyways, what sort of tips are you looking for?
I don't know why DMs bring in restrictions on source material (no Dragon, Essentials, etc.) unless it's not setting appropriate (if you want to play a Paladin in Dark Sun, you might have to reflavour it a bit). It's not like using a power from Dragon is going to break the game. Maybe it would be worth at least asking him why he's banning Dragon, Essentials, etc. To be honest, it sounds like a sign of a control freak DM.
It might also be a sign that the DM used to play 3.5. The impression in the community was that stuff out of Dungeon and Dragon were not very well playtested, or worked only in a narrow context (such as a particular adventure in Dungeon) and would break the game if used. I haven't found that to be the case with 4e material, but frankly I prefer to avoid them anyway, just so DMs have less of a reason to question me in play.
- Only allowed material (powers, races, classes, etc) from the PHBs 1-3, Power books, 2 racial books, heroes of feywield/Elemental and Dungeon Survival, AVs, Mordenkainen's.
- Definitvely nothing from Dragon Magazines, Essentials stuff or settings books.
- Despite this, we are to use the online compendium errata'd versions of what we find in the allowed sources.
- Minions take two hits to kill unless one does 6/8/10+Lvl damage to them by tier.
- However one can instantly upgrade whatever magical items he has in his possession if he has the gold (no need to be in a store even)
- One can hand in a wishlist to be subject to DM fiat
I've been subject to these at the start of an adventure once. At least in my case, the DM eased off rather quickly.
-
After a session or two, you can ask the DM for one thing at a time.
Such as "Hey, I think this power/feat/item/theme would really go with my character concept. It's not broken or anything. You think we could budge just a little bit this once?"
Since you're already using the online tools to find the updates to certain things, you'll be coming across all the other options as you go.
And before you know it, all should be well. Hopefully. (Your milage may vary depending on DM)
-
About the minions taking more hits, usually that's a sign of a DM who doesn't know how to tactically use minions and see them all wiped out in a single turn. This a fault on the DM. If anyting, they should be doubling/trippling the EXP yield they give (or consider that for the EXP Budget of the encounter) if they insist on that.
-
Wishlists are a pretty standard thing. Embrace them and hope the DM isn't a total dick.
-
Anyways, this DM probably got frustrated several times with his players rolfstomping his encounters and is trying to ease back on the PC power rather than improving his own tactics to provide more challenge to the players. But well, not much you can do about that one.
Anything else is to me indicative of a DM who is either not very skilled or has a different agenda than mine. Neither of which is going to be good for my game experience.
- Only allowed material (powers, races, classes, etc) from the PHBs 1-3, Power books, 2 racial books, heroes of feywield/Elemental and Dungeon Survival, AVs, Mordenkainen's.
- Definitvely nothing from Dragon Magazines, Essentials stuff or settings books.
- Despite this, we are to use the online compendium errata'd versions of what we find in the allowed sources.
- Also, monsters will almost all be from the newer thougher variety from MM3, Vault and Demonomicon.
- Minions take two hits to kill unless one does 6/8/10+Lvl damage to them by tier.
- No rare items and no themes.
- The only enchanted items one can buy are vanilla magical items (+1 and so on) of his own level and below
- However one can instantly upgrade whatever magical items he has in his possession if he has the gold (no need to be in a store even)
- One can hand in a wishlist to be subject to DM fiat
- Level up occurs ever 4-6 sessions instead of being experience based.
Which is to say, um all of that. I'll outline why I think these are major problems.
The core rule books were kinda broken, but were fixed to make more sense in a fair and balanced way I suppose (what was errata'd). But they were fine for dealing with monsters from MM1, MM2, and most of the campaign books that were released.
The monsters in MM3 and beyond were designed to be stronger and more competitive with the classes introduced in the DnD essentials materials. This means you'll be fighting against monsters meant to deal with essentials characters without the flexibility of essentials character.
Minions are meant to be killed in one hit, they can never be killed on a miss, even with attacks that say "x damage on a miss." Most minions are designed to get in maybe one hit before they get dropped, or attack in swarms, which is why they do pretty low damage, many of them don't even roll for damage. And the restriction of 6/8/10 +Lvl per tier might never even be met by a minion.
Look at this, a Human Thug, a Level 7 Minion Skirmisher, worth 75xp, has a +12 to hit and does 7 damage on a hit.
An at-level level 7 encounter would be about 1500xp for a party of 5. Now, facing an entire encounter of minions isn't usually that likely but imagine this, there'd be 20 of these guys if they were the entire encounter (against my hypothetical party of 5).
I just built a quick fighter, at level 7 with 65 hit points (auto built, featless). Imagine an unlucky fighter that gets nailed by 5 of these guys in a round. That's 35 damage. Guess who's bloodied now? And what if you only have a party with single target attackers? No sorcerer's with bursts or blasts... A round goes by and you can't clear any of those minions away because you only hit them once, and because the DM rules that they do not do at least 13 damage to you, must be hit twice.
There's almost always more monsters than players.
Rare items are supposed to be rare, but is this a restriction on buying them? According to the DM guide, a party should find 1 rare item / tier (I think that's what was stated.) Personally I allow a streetwise check at the end of each major campaign arc, for every streetwise check meeting a hard DC I let the party purchase that many rares. Which really just ends up being one per the group, because there's usually just one player with skill enough in streetwise.
There's nothing really all that wrong with banning the themes, but personally I like to use them in heroic games as a midway to paragon tier. At level 5 I let players pick a theme for their characters.
On a story / character level though banning themes encroaches on how players define their characters.
Restricting characters to buying only basic magical items is asinine, for lack of a better term. It punishes players who want to look for items that create synergy with their characters and parties.
The upgrade rule on magic items is nice, but items jump in levels of 5 and the costs may not be very affordable for gold rewards the players get.
A magic weapon + 1 (level 1 item) = 360gp, +2 (level 6 item) = 1800gp, +3 (level 11 item) = 9000gp
According to the DMG, a level 6 treasure parcel for a party of 5 would have 4 magic items, and a total monetary payout of 3,600gp. If someone's left out of getting a new item, are they splitting the cash payout with the rest of their party?
Levelling every 4-6 sessions, well, levelling is up to the DM. I use experience as a tracker, because it helps. And the general rule in the DMG / PHB is that level-ups should occur around every 8-10 encounters. If you guys are running 2 encounters a session, then that's about on track actually.
I feel like this DM is imposing too many restrictions, and may not understand the core of 4th's design, or may be some 3.5e or Pathfinder player coming into 4th with preconceived prejudices. The best approach is to just take the basic rules, start with those, and then modify them as you go (which may be the case if this is an experienced 4e DM.)
But I wouldn't impose these restrictions on my players, or play with a DM that did. It's too punishing for the players.
I don't sign up for games that have house rules that aren't based in thematic considerations (e.g. "No divine power source in Dark Sun").
Anything else is to me indicative of a DM who is either not very skilled or has a different agenda than mine. Neither of which is going to be good for my game experience.
If your DM told you up front about mechanical changes he is going to make, so that you aren't suprised you wouldn't appreciate that? You'd rather assume things work one way, only to find out they work another?
Alternatively, you prefer to run all games RAW? Including obvious rules mistakes and clarifications when multiple rulings exist?
Both of those sound like a recipie for disaster.
---
I can understand if your DM can't explain his house rule with anything better than "I don't like how it normally works" or tries to use the "Realism" card, but just outright disliking house rules being presented to you seems ridicilus.
If your DM told you up front about mechanical changes he is going to make, so that you aren't suprised you wouldn't appreciate that? You'd rather assume things work one way, only to find out they work another?Alternatively, you prefer to run all games RAW? Including obvious rules mistakes and clarifications when multiple rulings exist?
Both of those sound like a recipie for disaster.
---
I can understand if your DM can't explain his house rule with anything better than "I don't like how it normally works" or tries to use the "Realism" card, but just outright disliking house rules being presented to you seems ridicilus.
Whoa, I'm not saying any of that at all. Of course the DM should disclose his house rules. I'm saying I don't offer my buy-in unless those house rules are based on thematic considerations. Most house rules I see are not based in thematic considerations. They're generally more like the original post - DMs cracking down on this or that they don't like because of whatever reasons, biases, and prejudices they have. I take a pass on those games.
Alternatively, you prefer to run all games RAW? Including obvious rules mistakes and clarifications when multiple rulings exist?
Using the rules as intended is not the same as using houserules.
The minion thing is weird, and it seems like he's wanting strikers and fighters to drop minions, but not the wizards AoE minion-blasting powers. That's a little suspect to me.
As for the themes, some DMs think themes are overpowered, as they basically hand out a free encounter power to every lv. 1 character. I don't hold that opinion, but the DM is certainly entitled to it.
I agree with some other posters who see this as a trust thing. If you want to play in the campaign but also want greater leeway in picking powers then I suggest building your character according to the guidelines given and when something comes up that you want that fits with your character concept bring that up to the DM.
Whoa, I'm not saying any of that at all. Of course the DM should disclose his house rules. I'm saying I don't offer my buy-in unless those house rules are based on thematic considerations.
Thank you for the clarification. Super helpful.
Alternatively, you prefer to run all games RAW? Including obvious rules mistakes and clarifications when multiple rulings exist?
Using the rules as intended is not the same as using houserules.
Multiple official rules say different things. What do you do?
Some things are very unclear, cludgy, or super tedious to go through? 3.5 grapple or diplomacy are some examples. What do you do?
Any answer you give to the first is a house rule. The second you either have a house rule or unfun session as you fight with the rules. (or opt to not use the published minigame at all which is also a house rule).
Any rules clarification where the DM makes a call is a house rule. Writing them down so you are consistant and can warn players of common situations requiring a ruling is only curtious. Its also super helpful for determining if you will enjoy the DMs game.
Multiple official rules say different things. What do you do?Some things are very unclear, cludgy, or super tedious to go through? 3.5 grapple or diplomacy are some examples. What do you do?
That's less of a problem in 4e than in previous editions in my experience.
OP: Out of curiosity, did this DM also make statements along the lines of the game being "more roleplaying than combat?"
Multiple official rules say different things. What do you do?
Pick one, or go with whatever my players' interpretation is.
Some things are very unclear, cludgy, or super tedious to go through? 3.5 grapple or diplomacy are some examples. What do you do?
Not play 3.5, for a start. Otherwise, resolve it in a way that's clear, simple and fun.
Any answer you give to the first is a house rule.
No. A "house rule" is a deliberate change to a rule because I know what the rule is and don't care for it. Any answer other than that to the first one is simply playing the rules as I believe they were intended.
The second you either have a house rule or unfun session as you fight with the rules. (or opt to not use the published minigame at all which is also a house rule).
I don't see why it's a house rule not to use certain aspects of the rules in certain situations. Especially in 4th Edition, different actions can have different rules underlying them.
Any rules clarification where the DM makes a call is a house rule.
Not the way I see it. I gave you my definition above. And a DM might make a rules clarification honestly believing themselves to be interpreting the rules correctly, yet be making a mistake. That's not a house rule either.
Writing them down so you are consistant and can warn players of common situations requiring a ruling is only curtious. Its also super helpful for determining if you will enjoy the DMs game.
I am consistent in that I always either rule either in the players' favor, or ask them if they wouldn't mind me ruling another way to arrange a cool situation for them. I make that clear to my players upfront.
So here's the campaign I'm about to start. We're starting at level 4, setting is LFR. The DM has imposed the following restrictios:
- Only allowed material (powers, races, classes, etc) from the PHBs 1-3, Power books, 2 racial books, heroes of feywield/Elemental and Dungeon Survival, AVs, Mordenkainen's.
- Definitvely nothing from Dragon Magazines, Essentials stuff or settings books.
- Despite this, we are to use the online compendium errata'd versions of what we find in the allowed sources.
- Also, monsters will almost all be from the newer thougher variety from MM3, Vault and Demonomicon.
- Minions take two hits to kill unless one does 6/8/10+Lvl damage to them by tier.
- No rare items and no themes.
- The only enchanted items one can buy are vanilla magical items (+1 and so on) of his own level and below
- However one can instantly upgrade whatever magical items he has in his possession if he has the gold (no need to be in a store even)
- One can hand in a wishlist to be subject to DM fiat
- Level up occurs ever 4-6 sessions instead of being experience based.
Sounds like I'm heading towards a massacre! Any tips?
This sounds a lot like the rules in my game.
- Pretty much the same, except I don't allow PHB3 Classes either, unless someone makes a case for Monk.
- I actually do allow DragonMagazine stuff, but not Essentials. Essentials stuff is too simple IMO. Every time I have seen someone play an essentials class, they end up bored with it and wanting to switch anyway. So when a player asks to play an essentials class, I help them build and reflavor a core class to function similarly to the Essentials Class they wanted. So far, players I have done this with are very happy with the results.
- Yes, Compendium versions, there are math fixes in them that came out with Essentials, but also fixed the math for core rules
- Yes, MM3 monsters, even if I have to convert them myself. Same as above, they were math fixes, not necesarilly related to essentials, just came out at around the same time
- Minions, well, most of my groups find minions to be pretty boring, and as DM I kinda do too at times. However, instead of making up wierd rules for them, I just replace every 4 with a standard monster of the same level. Now if the minions have some interesting flavor to them, or I see a way I can use them interestingly, I still use them, but most of the time in the published campaigns I run, this is not the case and they are better off just replaced than re-ruling them.
- Rares, well, we started at level 1, no no magic items at creation anyway, as for handing them out as loot, case by case basis really. For themes, I have a lot of newer players in my groups, so I keep the themes out to simplify things and have less options during combat.
- Kinda odd on the enchanted items there, but not too bad.
- Very nice, I may use that, instant upgrading, cool idea.
- I always accept wishlists, if one is not provided, I'll make one for you.
- See other threads about XP. Very normal thing to do. Who likes bookeeping?
- Pretty much the same, except I don't allow PHB3 Classes either, unless someone makes a case for Monk.
I'm curious as to why you wouldn't allow PHB3 classes. Is it some sort of thematic concern about psionic classes, especially power point classes? Even that doesn't make that much sense to me, because many of them have different themes (power point classes are fairly similar, but the Monk, Seeker and Runepriest all have a unique identity).
I know as a player, I'd be a little irked at this rule because one of my favourite classes is a PHB3 class, and I really don't see what is to be gained by having my DM say essentially "no, you can't play a Seeker because I said so."
- I actually do allow DragonMagazine stuff, but not Essentials. Essentials stuff is too simple IMO. Every time I have seen someone play an essentials class, they end up bored with it and wanting to switch anyway. So when a player asks to play an essentials class, I help them build and reflavor a core class to function similarly to the Essentials Class they wanted. So far, players I have done this with are very happy with the results.
Would it not make more sense to trust your players' judgement on what class they want to play? This reeks of "I know what you want better than you do." And again, if I were your player, I'd be irked because another one of my favourite classes is the Scout.
- Minions, well, most of my groups find minions to be pretty boring, and as DM I kinda do too at times. However, instead of making up wierd rules for them, I just replace every 4 with a standard monster of the same level. Now if the minions have some interesting flavor to them, or I see a way I can use them interestingly, I still use them, but most of the time in the published campaigns I run, this is not the case and they are better off just replaced than re-ruling them.
Regarding minions, I think a key to making them more interesting is make them have an interesting shtick (more than just cannon fodder), and have them legitimately threatening to the players, their goals, or both.
As one example, I designed an encounter recently where the minions:
1. Have an at-will daze attack, which does no damage (in addition to a regular at-will)
2. Are threatening to some lovable NPCs (I ruled it as if they are adjacent to an NPC at the end of the round, the NPC gets a strike. Three strikes and they're dead)
3. Have the ability to mess with the PCs goal (In this case, steal the treasure the PCs are guarding)
This made for a riveting encounter - the at-will daze made them a serious threat, because they could try to daze the party and then go for the Mcguffin without getting slaughtered by OAs. They managed to kill one of the NPCs (poor Elfa Fitzgerald), and made a good run at the Mcguffin (almost getting away with it).
In this encounter, despite the fact that the PCs killed probably at least a couple dozen of them (I started with mostly minions, about 16 of them, and a big minion-generating solo), they remained a threat throughout the entire encounter.
- Non-thematic restrictions/house rules
- Use of the words "let" or "allow" when referring to player requests
- Calling it "my" game or "my" world
- Saying "roleplaying not 'rollplaying'" or "my game is more roleplaying than combat"
- Gives out advantage, bonuses, or extra XP for pleasing him
I've learned that these things probably mean the DM and I are not a good fit.
I'm curious as to the rationale behind a couple of your rules.
- Pretty much the same, except I don't allow PHB3 Classes either, unless someone makes a case for Monk.
I'm curious as to why you wouldn't allow PHB3 classes. Is it some sort of thematic concern about psionic classes, especially power point classes? Even that doesn't make that much sense to me, because many of them have different themes (power point classes are fairly similar, but the Monk, Seeker and Runepriest all have a unique identity).
I know as a player, I'd be a little irked at this rule because one of my favourite classes is a PHB3 class, and I really don't see what is to be gained by having my DM say essentially "no, you can't play a Seeker because I said so."
- I actually do allow DragonMagazine stuff, but not Essentials. Essentials stuff is too simple IMO. Every time I have seen someone play an essentials class, they end up bored with it and wanting to switch anyway. So when a player asks to play an essentials class, I help them build and reflavor a core class to function similarly to the Essentials Class they wanted. So far, players I have done this with are very happy with the results.
Would it not make more sense to trust your players' judgement on what class they want to play? This reeks of "I know what you want better than you do." And again, if I were your player, I'd be irked because another one of my favourite classes is the Scout.
- Minions, well, most of my groups find minions to be pretty boring, and as DM I kinda do too at times. However, instead of making up wierd rules for them, I just replace every 4 with a standard monster of the same level. Now if the minions have some interesting flavor to them, or I see a way I can use them interestingly, I still use them, but most of the time in the published campaigns I run, this is not the case and they are better off just replaced than re-ruling them.
Regarding minions, I think a key to making them more interesting is make them have an interesting shtick (more than just cannon fodder), and have them legitimately threatening to the players, their goals, or both.
As one example, I designed an encounter recently where the minions:
1. Have an at-will daze attack, which does no damage (in addition to a regular at-will)
2. Are threatening to some lovable NPCs (I ruled it as if they are adjacent to an NPC at the end of the round, the NPC gets a strike. Three strikes and they're dead)
3. Have the ability to mess with the PCs goal (In this case, steal the treasure the PCs are guarding)
This made for a riveting encounter - the at-will daze made them a serious threat, because they could try to daze the party and then go for the Mcguffin without getting slaughtered by OAs. They managed to kill one of the NPCs (poor Elfa Fitzgerald), and made a good run at the Mcguffin (almost getting away with it).
In this encounter, despite the fact that the PCs killed probably at least a couple dozen of them (I started with mostly minions, about 16 of them, and a big minion-generating solo), they remained a threat throughout the entire encounter.
Two part reason on PHB3 classes, which mostly have Power Points, not sure about the Seeker. One, in the VTT I use for my games, most things are pretty automated and they are a huge pain in the ass to setup. Also, I do not feel Psionics really fit well in the setting we use. If I had a player that asked me to play one and could make it fit with the setting well, I'd probably consider it. It's not likely though, because I just don't like them and do not think they are fun. If you did not want to play in a game I am DMing because of that, that's ok with me, there are plenty of players out there lining up to play.
Again, on the essentials classes, this has never really come up. Noone in any of my games has ever even expressed a slight interest in any of the Essentials classes. Again, if that turns you off, that's fine, you can find another game to play in I am sure. However, I have seen several other online games that have these same 2 rules, no PHB3/Psionic Power Source, no Essentials. It's fairly common. Perhaps once I am a little more experienced with DMing and more comfortable with the macros and whatnot in the framework I use, or learn a better framework, I will likely be less restrictive though.
As for minions, again, still kinda a newbie DM and using published material. I am starting to modify it more and more as I get comfortable with what my group can handle and may do some more interesting stuff with them in the future though, as I start building my own monsters for encounters. As it is right now though, I just convert the monsters to Monster Vault/MM3 math and replace minions, though starting to do a little more than that lately.
Not the way I see it. I gave you my definition above.
You changed the definition of a word, and then were confused why people/(maybe just me) disagreed with your usage of it?
If you change the definition of a word you have to tell house beforehand or at least within a few minutes.
Show
Note for this paragraph, I am defining house as "A group of people you are talking to" not "A thing you live in"
Not the way I see it. I gave you my definition above.
You changed the definition of a word, and then were confused why people/(maybe just me) disagreed with your usage of it?
No.
If you change the definition of a word you have to tell house beforehand or at least within a few minutes.
Also no.
Two part reason on PHB3 classes, which mostly have Power Points, not sure about the Seeker. One, in the VTT I use for my games, most things are pretty automated and they are a huge pain in the ass to setup. Also, I do not feel Psionics really fit well in the setting we use. If I had a player that asked me to play one and could make it fit with the setting well, I'd probably consider it. It's not likely though, because I just don't like them and do not think they are fun. If you did not want to play in a game I am DMing because of that, that's ok with me, there are plenty of players out there lining up to play.
Well, the Seeker doesn't have Power Points and isn't even Psionic (same goes for the Runepriest), so it seems slighly peculiar to ban something you (admittedly) don't even know the first thing about.
Also, there are things out there that I don't like and don't think are fun. For example, I'm not a fan of "smashy Clerics" - whenever I make a Cleric, I always go for a "Laser Cleric." But I don't see why that's a good reason to ban it at my table, especially if some of my players find them fun.
Finally, I'd recommend that you work with your players to create the setting, or at the very least leave enough blanks for them to fill in that "Jim, the dude from the faraway land with the psionic powers" is at least a possibility.
Again, on the essentials classes, this has never really come up. Noone in any of my games has ever even expressed a slight interest in any of the Essentials classes. Again, if that turns you off, that's fine, you can find another game to play in I am sure.However, I have seen several other online games that have these same 2 rules, no PHB3/Psionic Power Source, no Essentials. It's fairly common.
These don't seem like good reasons. Banning a class because of a lack of interest seems illogical and superflulous. I don't think I've ever DMed for a Sha'ir or Runepriest, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. And while these kinds of restrictions may be fairly common, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to have them.
Perhaps once I am a little more experienced with DMing and more comfortable with the macros and whatnot in the framework I use, or learn a better framework, I will likely be less restrictive though.
I get that you're a new DM, but what is it that you're afraid of that is causing you to implement these restrictions?
(as an aside, the last time I played a PP class in an online game, I found the macros to be a bit more complicated, but not unworkable)
I'd be more afraid of a campaign that didn't have these rules... although I absolutely loathe starting a character above 1st level; I feel like I've been cheated out of level 1 - 3.
Be even more afraid if the DM doesn't have a clue of what kind of world he's running and expects you to just 'wing it'. You'll spend half your time trying to find your footing that will allow you to make a relevant character, and when you do the other players will have characters that seem like they come from a completely different world/setting.
Creativity is working within paramaters. No parameters = no creativity.
Looks pretty standard to me.
I'd be more afraid of a campaign that didn't have these rules... although I absolutely loathe starting a character above 1st level; I feel like I've been cheated out of level 1 - 3.
Be even more afraid if the DM doesn't have a clue of what kind of world he's running and expects you to just 'wing it'. You'll spend half your time trying to find your footing that will allow you to make a relevant character, and when you do the other players will have characters that seem like they come from a completely different world/setting.
Creativity is working within paramaters. No parameters = no creativity.
Sounds like you're in favor of house rules based on thematic considerations.
Looks pretty standard to me.
I'd be more afraid of a campaign that didn't have these rules... although I absolutely loathe starting a character above 1st level; I feel like I've been cheated out of level 1 - 3.
Be even more afraid if the DM doesn't have a clue of what kind of world he's running and expects you to just 'wing it'. You'll spend half your time trying to find your footing that will allow you to make a relevant character, and when you do the other players will have characters that seem like they come from a completely different world/setting.
Creativity is working within paramaters. No parameters = no creativity.
Really?
What is it about Essentials, Dragon content, settings material, and themes that you are "afraid" of?
And minions, as a player, are you afraid that a monster designed to be killed in one hit might actually die in one hit?
Also, I don't think anyone here advocates that the DM doesn't start a session without at least some vague idea as to what kind of world he's running. But, it's a good idea to give your players some input on the world as well and let them fill in details, rather than imposing everything upon them. Finally, I find that when I'm playing a game where we engage in collaboration to build the world and our character histories, we have characters that seem to all come from and make sense in our world, and tend to get along rather well.
Two part reason on PHB3 classes, which mostly have Power Points, not sure about the Seeker. One, in the VTT I use for my games, most things are pretty automated and they are a huge pain in the ass to setup. Also, I do not feel Psionics really fit well in the setting we use. If I had a player that asked me to play one and could make it fit with the setting well, I'd probably consider it. It's not likely though, because I just don't like them and do not think they are fun. If you did not want to play in a game I am DMing because of that, that's ok with me, there are plenty of players out there lining up to play.
Well, the Seeker doesn't have Power Points and isn't even Psionic (same goes for the Runepriest), so it seems slighly peculiar to ban something you (admittedly) don't even know the first thing about.
Also, there are things out there that I don't like and don't think are fun. For example, I'm not a fan of "smashy Clerics" - whenever I make a Cleric, I always go for a "Laser Cleric." But I don't see why that's a good reason to ban it at my table, especially if some of my players find them fun.
Finally, I'd recommend that you work with your players to create the setting, or at the very least leave enough blanks for them to fill in that "Jim, the dude from the faraway land with the psionic powers" is at least a possibility.Again, on the essentials classes, this has never really come up. Noone in any of my games has ever even expressed a slight interest in any of the Essentials classes. Again, if that turns you off, that's fine, you can find another game to play in I am sure.However, I have seen several other online games that have these same 2 rules, no PHB3/Psionic Power Source, no Essentials. It's fairly common.
These don't seem like good reasons. Banning a class because of a lack of interest seems illogical and superflulous. I don't think I've ever DMed for a Sha'ir or Runepriest, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. And while these kinds of restrictions may be fairly common, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to have them.Perhaps once I am a little more experienced with DMing and more comfortable with the macros and whatnot in the framework I use, or learn a better framework, I will likely be less restrictive though.
I get that you're a new DM, but what is it that you're afraid of that is causing you to implement these restrictions?
(as an aside, the last time I played a PP class in an online game, I found the macros to be a bit more complicated, but not unworkable)
Well, the beauty of DnD is that we can all play how we want and none of us are wrong as long as we are having fun. I play my way, you play yours. My players happen to love my game, eager to play all the time. So eager in fact, that we play 2 nights a week, at the request of the players, occasionally, if I have enough content ready and everyone has the time, 3 nights, again, at the request of the players. You might not have fun in it, but others do, so who really cares.
Well, the beauty of DnD is that we can all play how we want and none of us are wrong as long as we are having fun. I play my way, you play yours. My players happen to love my game, eager to play all the time. So eager in fact, that we play 2 nights a week, at the request of the players, occasionally, if I have enough content ready and everyone has the time, 3 nights, again, at the request of the players. You might not have fun in it, but others do, so who really cares.
I'm not saying you can't play how you want. I'm only challenging you a bit because I'm genuinely curious as to why so many DMs make rules like these, and because it's a forum. It's meant for us to share and challenge ideas so we can all become better players and better DMs.
Also, I don't think anyone here advocates that the DM doesn't start a session without at least some vague idea as to what kind of world he's running. But, it's a good idea to give your players some input on the world as well and let them fill in details, rather than imposing everything upon them. Finally, I find that when I'm playing a game where we engage in collaboration to build the world and our character histories, we have characters that seem to all come from and make sense in our world, and tend to get along rather well.
Have you played Microscope? That game starts out with the Pallette, a group-created list of what is explicitly allowed and what is explicitly disallowed. Anyone can declare something, but no one can declare more than one thing more than anyone else. Things that are allowed aren't mandatory, but I don't see much reason to declare something is allowed, and not use it.
My point is, I think D&D could benefit from something like that. I might declare "No joke names," and "no loners," as both a player and a DM. Someone else might declare "No psionics." The declaration doesn't even have to be justified, but it also can't be blocked. If you want "no raise dead," then you'd better state that before someone says "raise dead is allowed," and the same goes for them. If something you wanted is disallowed, I believe it is acceptable to then allow something that will get you at least some of what you want, though in D&D it's possible to ban sources which would be hard to mitigate.
Looks pretty standard to me.
I'd be more afraid of a campaign that didn't have these rules... although I absolutely loathe starting a character above 1st level; I feel like I've been cheated out of level 1 - 3.
Be even more afraid if the DM doesn't have a clue of what kind of world he's running and expects you to just 'wing it'. You'll spend half your time trying to find your footing that will allow you to make a relevant character, and when you do the other players will have characters that seem like they come from a completely different world/setting.
Creativity is working within paramaters. No parameters = no creativity.
Really?
What is it about Essentials, Dragon content, settings material, and themes that you are "afraid" of?
And minions, as a player, are you afraid that a monster designed to be killed in one hit might actually die in one hit?
Also, I don't think anyone here advocates that the DM doesn't start a session without at least some vague idea as to what kind of world he's running. But, it's a good idea to give your players some input on the world as well and let them fill in details, rather than imposing everything upon them. Finally, I find that when I'm playing a game where we engage in collaboration to build the world and our character histories, we have characters that seem to all come from and make sense in our world, and tend to get along rather well.
I'm not sure what the 'really' question pertains to, so I will address the 2nd question.
I don't play 4th edition, so my fear of course is that these things pertain to 4th edition. I actually think the DM should look at the content on a case by case basis to work with the player. If there's something in Essentials that the player really wants to play and it is consistent with the world's overall theme, then the DM should be open to it. As a starting campaign, keeping the extra variables out of it sets the overall 'feel' of the campaign. At a later time, when the player wants to introduce some oddball character originally designed for another setting, the players and DM will be able to gauge how to react.
As far as the minions, this is really a 4th edition phenomenon, to call them such. Back in basic red-box d&d, we called them "Peons"... monsters with minimum hp. They typically died in one hit, but not all ways... Kobolds, goblins and other peons, such as low-level commoners. I don't design them to be killed in one hit, though. I design them as weak... not paper-thin. Occasionally even a peon can give you trouble. I think this is a non-issue, though. Two hp isn't going to make a hill-of-beans just because it's twice as many as 1 hp.
I think the second sentence of your last paragraph sums up what I was actually trying to say. I meant that it's good that the DM has given it some thought and actually shared those thoughts instead of giving the players a gotcha.
Some players are much better at collaboration of story than others, though, aren't they? Having some guidelines can help such a player. That's what I was lauding.
Have you played Microscope? That game starts out with the Pallette, a group-created list of what is explicitly allowed and what is explicitly disallowed.
Yes, you "DMed" it for me, remember?
Anyone can declare something, but no one can declare more than one thing more than anyone else. Things that are allowed aren't mandatory, but I don't see much reason to declare something is allowed, and not use it.
My point is, I think D&D could benefit from something like that. I might declare "No joke names," and "no loners," as both a player and a DM. Someone else might declare "No psionics." The declaration doesn't even have to be justified, but it also can't be blocked. If you want "no raise dead," then you'd better state that before someone says "raise dead is allowed," and the same goes for them. If something you wanted is disallowed, I believe it is acceptable to then allow something that will get you at least some of what you want, though in D&D it's possible to ban sources which would be hard to mitigate.
I think it was a cool world-building tool, and could be useful in a session zero. Perhaps do a session of Microscope to build the world collaboratively and decide where people want to start. Then, in session one, kick things off with some collaborative character building - working together on intertwined backstories and whatnot, and refining the world a little bit, then jumping straight into the action.
Of course, I've been mostly DMing one-shots lately, so I haven't really had the opportunity to use it to create a campaign world.
To be honest, I was a little uncomfortable about the Pallette, specifically the ability to unilaterally declare things off-limits. It feels like a sort of "pre-emptive blocking" to me, and I think if we're setting restrictions like that, it's better to do so in a more collaborative way where you can get the buy-in of the whole table, rather than just turnign a series of unilateral declarations into a list of what's not allowed. Of course, I don't really have a "mechanic" in mind for this.
Have you played Microscope? That game starts out with the Pallette, a group-created list of what is explicitly allowed and what is explicitly disallowed.
Yes, you "DMed" it for me, remember?
I wasn't sure.
To be honest, I was a little uncomfortable about the Pallette, specifically the ability to unilaterally declare things off-limits. It feels like a sort of "pre-emptive blocking" to me, and I think if we're setting restrictions like that, it's better to do so in a more collaborative way where you can get the buy-in of the whole table, rather than just turnign a series of unilateral declarations into a list of what's not allowed. Of course, I don't really have a "mechanic" in mind for this.
I definitely see what you mean. I think the game does it like that because it's meant as a one-shot, and if you don't get to use your idea this time, you can next time. It's also different because if you really want something, you can mitigate it by allowing something. If someone says "No psionics," if you can figure out what it is about psionics you really wanted then you can allow that. "Yes: powers/rituals/tech that (transmits mental messages, potentially to a painful level/focuses mental energy/harnesses mutant genes to allow superhuman feats)" Or something. I think it's allowed to ask someone to clarify their "No." After all, in 3.5 someone who disallows "psionics" still allows "telekinesis" because that's an arcane spell. Find out what they're really against. Maybe they'll be all for psionics, if you couch it in the right terms.
I use the Palette during Session Zero now. I tend to make it about things you don't want to see under the assumption that things you do want to see will just make it into the fiction as we play. Nobody's ever chosen to ban any source material though, even though they could if they wanted to. Most players I run into don't care for the DM banning material.
I can see why players tend to not like the DM banning material.
My basic house rule is... let me see it first so I know what to expect instead of slowing down the game to understand some oddball power's functionality and also so I can add some elements/encounters that might highlight a particular unusual ability. I typically allow official material of any sort, using the assumption that the game designers had some sense of balance in the design.
That said, I almost always ban home-brew things, though. They often tend to be more of a distraction to the game than a benefit... and their abilities are too often haphazardly put together with no sense of a theme and often with senseless/useless mechanical additions that slow down the game for everyone. Worse, once I figure these characters out, they either dominate the entire game to the detriment of the other player's fun, or they don't... in which case the player who everyone catered to by helping the oddball class fit into the world through collaboration and other politico no longer wants to play the character so several more hours are wasted trying to explain away the character's existence and get back to square zero.
After 25 years of playing in my brother's campaigns, despite the fact that he is a notorious, unrepentant railroader... what really broke the bank for me was when he allowed another player to play a Pathfinder Magus into a 3.5 edition game... I spent most of the time watching the other player destroy encounter after encounter after encounter (half these encounters I really didn't want to be in anyway). And, as usual with the type of player who would think an overpowered character is a good idea, it was a cardboard character that I couldn't even root for from the sidelines as he hogged the spotlight. Such a ban would have helped his game... saved it, really, since most of his players had already given up because of the railroading. Or maybe it was when he didn't let my formerly polite, chivalrous aristocrat 'hulk out' by taking a level in Marvel Superheroes. I called it "The Indignant Wrath of the Nobles". It was like a barbarians rage... times 100. I still couldn't deal as much damage per round as this Magus character (designed as it was for a totally different and broken system), but I wasn't allowed to do that anymore. So arbitrary. Sibling rivalry trumps nepotism, apparently.
Have you played Microscope? That game starts out with the Pallette, a group-created list of what is explicitly allowed and what is explicitly disallowed.
Yes, you "DMed" it for me, remember?
I wasn't sure.To be honest, I was a little uncomfortable about the Pallette, specifically the ability to unilaterally declare things off-limits. It feels like a sort of "pre-emptive blocking" to me, and I think if we're setting restrictions like that, it's better to do so in a more collaborative way where you can get the buy-in of the whole table, rather than just turnign a series of unilateral declarations into a list of what's not allowed. Of course, I don't really have a "mechanic" in mind for this.
I definitely see what you mean. I think the game does it like that because it's meant as a one-shot, and if you don't get to use your idea this time, you can next time. It's also different because if you really want something, you can mitigate it by allowing something. If someone says "No psionics," if you can figure out what it is about psionics you really wanted then you can allow that. "Yes: powers/rituals/tech that (transmits mental messages, potentially to a painful level/focuses mental energy/harnesses mutant genes to allow superhuman feats)" Or something. I think it's allowed to ask someone to clarify their "No." After all, in 3.5 someone who disallows "psionics" still allows "telekinesis" because that's an arcane spell. Find out what they're really against. Maybe they'll be all for psionics, if you couch it in the right terms.
Fair enough on the point of a one-shot and about using things the "yes to X" to mitigate things (although, there could be a problem with using this sort of mitigation to effectively block each other. Your example is pretty close to saying "No to cheese, but yes to processed dairy products made of curds separated from whey"). And I agree it's good practice to figure out exactly what people are against, although I still think if you're going to be stuck with the decisions for longer than a session, you should probably shoot for consensus. Especially when we're talking about restrictions, because when confronted with any idea, I'd much rather ask myself "How and why can this exist in our world?" than "Why can't we have this?"
I think that would be a bit tricker with using that sort of mechanic for worldbuilding in something like a 4e campaign, where you're stuck with the decisions for a while, and where people can use it to ban specific, discrete things like races/classes/source material. I know I'd be pretty bummed if the dude next to me said "No Seekers, because I said so." Especially if I've got my character sheet printed already.
My basic house rule is... let me see it first so I know what to expect instead of slowing down the game to understand some oddball power's functionality and also so I can add some elements/encounters that might highlight a particular unusual ability. I typically allow official material of any sort, using the assumption that the game designers had some sense of balance in the design.
Mine is "I trust you to know how to run your own character." 4e doesn't have too many oddball rules and even if you get them wrong it tends not to break much at all. And I don't ever design encounters with particular character abilities in mind.
The only restrictions I'd consider are thematic ones e.g. "no divine power source in Dark Sun."
That said, I almost always ban home-brew things, though. They often tend to be more of a distraction to the game than a benefit... and their abilities are too often haphazardly put together with no sense of a theme and often with senseless/useless mechanical additions that slow down the game for everyone. Worse, once I figure these characters out, they either dominate the entire game to the detriment of the other player's fun, or they don't... in which case the player who everyone catered to by helping the oddball class fit into the world through collaboration and other politico no longer wants to play the character so several more hours are wasted trying to explain away the character's existence and get back to square zero.
Maybe that's more of a 3.X/OGL thing. I've never seen anyone go outside official sources for stuff in 4e.
After 25 years of playing in my brother's campaigns, despite the fact that he is a notorious, unrepentant railroader... what really broke the bank for me was when he allowed another player to play a Pathfinder Magus into a 3.5 edition game... I spent most of the time watching the other player destroy encounter after encounter after encounter (half these encounters I really didn't want to be in anyway).
Well, at least he wasn't a 3.5 wizard or druid.
(although, there could be a problem with using this sort of mitigation to effectively block each other. Your example is pretty close to saying "No to cheese, but yes to processed dairy products made of curds separated from whey").
Definitely. Someone who wanted to play a psion could also just make a wizard and play it like a psion, especially in 3.5 where some of the psionic powers and items are just, heh, pallette swaps for wizard ones. That's a similarly cheap move, except that it would probably reveal whether someone's issue is really with the thematics or with the rules.
And I agree it's good practice to figure out exactly what people are against, although I still think if you're going to be stuck with the decisions for longer than a session, you should probably shoot for consensus. Especially when we're talking about restrictions, because when confronted with any idea, I'd much rather ask myself "How and why can this exist in our world?" than "Why can't we have this?"
My hope would be that if you find out exactly what people are against then consensus is more easily reachible. "Oh, you don't like the thematics? Well, I mainly just like the mechanics, so I'll play him as a wizard. Cool?" "Oh, you dislike the mechanics? Can I make a sorcerer and call him a psion, then?"
I think that would be a bit tricker with using that sort of mechanic for worldbuilding in something like a 4e campaign, where you're stuck with the decisions for a while, and where people can use it to ban specific, discrete things like races/classes/source material. I know I'd be pretty bummed if the dude next to me said "No Seekers, because I said so." Especially if I've got my character sheet printed already.
Yeah, true. I'd hope that would be figured out before someone had settled on a character, though, or even committed to the group.
Well, the beauty of DnD is that we can all play how we want and none of us are wrong as long as we are having fun. I play my way, you play yours. My players happen to love my game, eager to play all the time. So eager in fact, that we play 2 nights a week, at the request of the players, occasionally, if I have enough content ready and everyone has the time, 3 nights, again, at the request of the players. You might not have fun in it, but others do, so who really cares.
I'm not saying you can't play how you want. I'm only challenging you a bit because I'm genuinely curious as to why so many DMs make rules like these, and because it's a forum. It's meant for us to share and challenge ideas so we can all become better players and better DMs.
And I explained and you argued, and I don't feel like arguing. Let me go ahead and break it down for you though.
Well, the Seeker doesn't have Power Points and isn't even Psionic (same goes for the Runepriest), so it seems slighly peculiar to ban something you (admittedly) don't even know the first thing about.
Also, there are things out there that I don't like and don't think are fun. For example, I'm not a fan of "smashy Clerics" - whenever I make a Cleric, I always go for a "Laser Cleric." But I don't see why that's a good reason to ban it at my table, especially if some of my players find them fun.
Finally, I'd recommend that you work with your players to create the setting, or at the very least leave enough blanks for them to fill in that "Jim, the dude from the faraway land with the psionic powers" is at least a possibility.
Perhaps I will have to give those classes another look if someone I am DMing for chooses to ask about it. I briefly looked at Seeker and I guess it's not really what I thougt it was. Rune Priest however looks like it would require double the normal amount of macros, which would be a pain in the ass to setup. I have enough setup to do and I have never had a player with the ability to set up their own macros. Again, if a player I DMed for asked about it, and I told them the reason, then they offered to setup the macros themselves, I would probably go along with it.
As for telling me how to play my game, don't, I don't tell you how to play yours. If my players ever would attempt to contribute, I would, but they don't, so again, don't "recommend" things or tell me how to run my game. I try to get them to, but am met with responses such as, " You're the DM you tell us." So I tell them.
These don't seem like good reasons. Banning a class because of a lack of interest seems illogical and superflulous. I don't think I've ever DMed for a Sha'ir or Runepriest, but that doesn't mean it should be banned. And while these kinds of restrictions may be fairly common, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to have them.
They may not seem like good reasons to you, but they do to me. So take you insulting tone somewhere else.
I get that you're a new DM, but what is it that you're afraid of that is causing you to implement these restrictions?
(as an aside, the last time I played a PP class in an online game, I found the macros to be a bit more complicated, but not unworkable)
It's the way I was taught, it's the way I've always played, it's what I am comfortable with. I even said in the first post that once I am more comfortable with the rules in my next campaign I will probably loosen all the restrictions, you seem to have chosen to ignore that part though.
Aside: I never said they were not unworkable, I said they were a pain in the ass I don't want to deal with.
Another thing I guess I should have mentioned at the start, is that all the rules I set are up for debate, to an extent(not Essentials stuff, I really hate most of it, it took the game in a direction I do not like). All my players must do is ask and we'll talk about it.
Game mechanics are not for roleplaying. They are there for gameplaying. The goal of any system's mechanics should be to facilitate the people around the table having a good time.
That being said, I appreciated 4th's attempt to keep the turns coming quickly. I also appreciated their attempt to make decisions easy.
Unless you are a player that I *know* will not hold up the table for minutes each turn by deciding whether to augment a power, you will not be playing a Psionic class. Period. End of story. You'll be dragging things down enough just deciding whether to use a Daily with a normal class.
Whenever there's a mechanic that I believe will lead to boredom for the table at large, I'll happily veto it and consider it a job well done. 4E Psionics falls into that category for me. If a player has shown to me that they're in it to make sure the group has fun and that they're capable of handling increased complexity without dragging down the group, that's when I'll waive the restriction.
In a similar vein, Next's spell preparation model is giving me the heebie-jeebies.
Whenever there's a mechanic that I believe will lead to boredom for the table at large, I'll happily veto it and consider it a job well done.
That's a wise approach, but I don't see why it has "little to do with fear." Boredom at the table is the primary thing to fear. It's at the bottom of why people ban classes that might be too powerful (because they might make the game boring for the other players) and or that might not fit the setting (because it might be boring for there to be characters that seem out of place or unconnected).
Mainly, I object to the idea that the only reason a DM might ban things is because they're afraid of losing power or don't know how to handle the mechanics themselves, which has been suggested several times in this thread.It personally has little do with fear for me because I can handle boredom.
Most people can, but in the context of a game it's best avoided.
Mainly, I object to the idea that the only reason a DM might ban things is because they're afraid of losing power or don't know how to handle the mechanics themselves, which has been suggested several times in this thread.
Fair enough. I think it's also been said that the potential players deserve to know the reasons why things are banned. An absolute, unwavering, and seemingly unreasonable ban smacks of fear. A ban that one can have lifted with the right qualifications seems more like pragmatism.
I play pathfinder, which is based on 3.5e and we homebrew some systems to simplify/enhance it a bit. Such as advantage/disadvantage instead of using modifiers, and we've added in a number of variants such as spell points, hero points, and a generous point buy system. We pump up our characters a bit over what 'standard' play is considered. I wouldn't really consider any of these restrictions though.
I suppose the only real restriction is that we are playing pathfinder, so our characters are pathfinder races (50+ options or so I think-with the option to build your own) and pathfinder classes (somewhat fewer than 3.5e).
It would be a long post to describe everything we've added to the game...but there hasn't been any content thats been banned or prohibited.
. An absolute, unwavering, and seemingly unreasonable ban smacks of fear. A ban that one can have lifted with the right qualifications seems more like pragmatism.
Not always.
In the past I've played in and run for large 3.5e groups (8 players or more), once a rule is laid down I found that it was best to make sure it was universally enforced.
I came to this over time as people were trying to introduce 3.5 'compatible' classes from outside material that would render other PC's useless or comparatively underpowered. For a while I tried to balance this with level adjustments, modifications or outright saying no to certain overpowered classes. Inevitably though there was almost always an argument from the player as to why they should be allowed and more often than not I would cave and let them play it, at the expense of the other players. I got sick of it eventually and just banned them all outright. Saying that the only things I would allow in game were sanctioned WoTC 3.5e material. The game ran much smoother and was far more enjoyable after that.
So while I dislike prohibiting things, I'm partial to the argument that if you are going to ban something....enforce the ban...because once a player starts poking holes in it....you are opening pandora's box.
So here's the campaign I'm about to start. We're starting at level 4, setting is LFR. The DM has imposed the following restrictios:Sounds like I'm heading towards a massacre! Any tips?
- Only allowed material (powers, races, classes, etc) from the PHBs 1-3, Power books, 2 racial books, heroes of feywield/Elemental and Dungeon Survival, AVs, Mordenkainen's.
- Definitvely nothing from Dragon Magazines, Essentials stuff or settings books.
- Despite this, we are to use the online compendium errata'd versions of what we find in the allowed sources.
- Also, monsters will almost all be from the newer thougher variety from MM3, Vault and Demonomicon.
- Minions take two hits to kill unless one does 6/8/10+Lvl damage to them by tier.
- No rare items and no themes.
- The only enchanted items one can buy are vanilla magical items (+1 and so on) of his own level and below
- However one can instantly upgrade whatever magical items he has in his possession if he has the gold (no need to be in a store even)
- One can hand in a wishlist to be subject to DM fiat
- Level up occurs ever 4-6 sessions instead of being experience based.
1&2) So your DM has removed the weakest classes in the game, the only real loss is the good expertise feats. The loss of some dragon material hurts some classes, but can be worked around.
3) No big deal.
4) Post errata players, and post errata monsters. Where's the problem?
5) That's kinda goofy, but whatever. So a level 6 minion has 12 hp's? Even a leader can do that in a single hit.
6) This is actually pretty standard. The party is only supposed to find 3-5 rare items over 30 levels. As for themes, meh? I've played and dm'd in several heroic tier games without themes (i'm actually dm'ing one right now). Themes help essentials classes the most since they are already limited in their power selection, but since no one will be using essentials classes, it's not a huge loss.
7) This is the guidline given in the RC. Nothing to see here.
8) Anyone with the craft magic item ritual can do this, it takes 1 hour and a bunch of arcane components. Your dm letting you directly trade gold for this saves a bit of timing (instant upgrades mid dungeon, awesome). No issue here.
9) Name a wishlist that isn't up to the dm? The reason for a wishlist is so the dm can get a decent idea of the gear you want, and not rely on a random loot guessing game.
10) Assuming 8-10 encounters per level, and 2 encounters per session, this sounds right on. It just eliminates some of the bookkeeping.
Unless you had your heartset on a Sohei Warforged Slayer with a gouge, you are really complaining over nothing.
. An absolute, unwavering, and seemingly unreasonable ban smacks of fear. A ban that one can have lifted with the right qualifications seems more like pragmatism.
Not always.
In the past I've played in and run for large 3.5e groups (8 players or more), once a rule is laid down I found that it was best to make sure it was universally enforced.
I came to this over time as people were trying to introduce 3.5 'compatible' classes from outside material that would render other PC's useless or comparatively underpowered. For a while I tried to balance this with level adjustments, modifications or outright saying no to certain overpowered classes. Inevitably though there was almost always an argument from the player as to why they should be allowed and more often than not I would cave and let them play it, at the expense of the other players. I got sick of it eventually and just banned them all outright. Saying that the only things I would allow in game were sanctioned WoTC 3.5e material. The game ran much smoother and was far more enjoyable after that.
So while I dislike prohibiting things, I'm partial to the argument that if you are going to ban something....enforce the ban...because once a player starts poking holes in it....you are opening pandora's box.
I feel like you've made the non-bolded half of my point.
. An absolute, unwavering, and seemingly unreasonable ban smacks of fear. A ban that one can have lifted with the right qualifications seems more like pragmatism.
Not always.
In the past I've played in and run for large 3.5e groups (8 players or more), once a rule is laid down I found that it was best to make sure it was universally enforced.
I came to this over time as people were trying to introduce 3.5 'compatible' classes from outside material that would render other PC's useless or comparatively underpowered. For a while I tried to balance this with level adjustments, modifications or outright saying no to certain overpowered classes. Inevitably though there was almost always an argument from the player as to why they should be allowed and more often than not I would cave and let them play it, at the expense of the other players. I got sick of it eventually and just banned them all outright. Saying that the only things I would allow in game were sanctioned WoTC 3.5e material. The game ran much smoother and was far more enjoyable after that.
So while I dislike prohibiting things, I'm partial to the argument that if you are going to ban something....enforce the ban...because once a player starts poking holes in it....you are opening pandora's box.
I feel like you've made the non-bolded half of my point.
Not sure how. I don't think that acting in the interests of running a smooth game and keeping the rules fair is acting on fear, and even if it was, saying it smacks of fear is not a valid criticism of the approach. In fact it is an ad hominem attack that doesn't attack the approach, but the person taking the approach, making it a fallacy.
I hate prohibiting things, which is one reason I stopped playing with groups larger than five where those problems have a greater tendency to arise. A lot of it also had to do with the individuals that I was running with, they were highly competitive and always trying to outdo one another, everyone wanted to be the star of the show-which isn't necessarily a bad thing-but dividing the DM's attention amongst 12 people inevitably leaves somebody out.
The problem was that the host (not the DM) kept inviting people and threatening to leave us with no where to play if we didn't allow them in, eventually we made good on his threats and left.
I don't think that acting in the interests of running a smooth game and keeping the rules fair is acting on fear,
It is if one is afraid of what will happen if the game isn't smooth and the rules aren't "fair."
and even if it was, saying it smacks of fear is not a valid criticism of the approach.
Yes it is.
In fact it is an ad hominem attack that doesn't attack the approach, but the person taking the approach, making it a fallacy.
Which doesn't matter because this isn't a matter for logic. It is absolutely a matter for personal preference. Any logic applied to it is just a cover for one's personal preference, as is almost always the case outside of mathematics.
I hate prohibiting things, which is one reason I stopped playing with groups larger than five where those problems have a greater tendency to arise. A lot of it also had to do with the individuals that I was running with, they were highly competitive and always trying to outdo one another, everyone wanted to be the star of the show-which isn't necessarily a bad thing-but dividing the DM's attention amongst 12 people inevitably leaves somebody out.
12 people, sheesh. Even if they weren't highly competitive, etc., 12 people is not one D&D game, it's three D&D games.
But I stand by my point. If something is prohibited, with no appeal, that's fear, fear that doing anything else will wreck the game in some way. Maybe it's fear of the players more than of the rules, but it's fear. Prohibiting something provisionally, with possibility for allowing it, say, once people know each other better, is still about fear, but acknowledges that there's a way through that fear.
If they really want you to play that badly or if they feel it would "ruin the game" if you weren't there, then they should be open to changes. If not, save everyone a lot of grief and walk away.
I really wish RPG's would spell that out in the first chapter. No game is better than a bad game.
I don't think that acting in the interests of running a smooth game and keeping the rules fair is acting on fear,
It is if one is afraid of what will happen if the game isn't smooth and the rules aren't "fair."and even if it was, saying it smacks of fear is not a valid criticism of the approach.
Yes it is.In fact it is an ad hominem attack that doesn't attack the approach, but the person taking the approach, making it a fallacy.
Which doesn't matter because this isn't a matter for logic. It is absolutely a matter for personal preference. Any logic applied to it is just a cover for one's personal preference, as is almost always the case outside of mathematics.
Ad Hominem and other fallacies can be applied to any of the sciences, including sociology, since we are talking about a social experience, it is relevant....on the other hand I agree games mostly boil down to preference...so meh.
Still...you are attacking the person and not the approach, which doesn't invalidate the restriction. The argument is basically:
"you are afraid so your approach is invalid"
"That would be false, approach not invalidated because I am not afraid."
"Yes you are."
"Attack the approach not me"
"Nope"
I don't think this is going anywhere.
I hate prohibiting things, which is one reason I stopped playing with groups larger than five where those problems have a greater tendency to arise. A lot of it also had to do with the individuals that I was running with, they were highly competitive and always trying to outdo one another, everyone wanted to be the star of the show-which isn't necessarily a bad thing-but dividing the DM's attention amongst 12 people inevitably leaves somebody out.
12 people, sheesh. Even if they weren't highly competitive, etc., 12 people is not one D&D game, it's three D&D games.
But I stand by my point. If something is prohibited, with no appeal, that's fear, fear that doing anything else will wreck the game in some way. Maybe it's fear of the players more than of the rules, but it's fear. Prohibiting something provisionally, with possibility for allowing it, say, once people know each other better, is still about fear, but acknowledges that there's a way through that fear.
Yea...12 was waaaaaay too many. I stuck it out for three years before I finally just lost it and hijacked 4 players-which I invited privately into my own group. The other group has subsequently gone to hell from what I'm told.
Do you think that the only reason to enforce rules is fear? Because that is the tone I'm getting, that you wouldn't accept any other reason for making a rule valid. Seems sort of narrow...
I think its quite possible to restrict something because of detrimental effects without descending to 'fear'...how about something is just annoying or frustrating to deal with? Or that the game is more fun without x (death?) or y?
If you spoke with an engineer about why he made changes to a design that he thought improved on the design, would you accuse him of being afraid of the old design? Seems sort of absurd. Now I suppose that could be a valid point if it was adding airbags, seatbelts, turn signals, safety glass, etc, but that doesn't mean that the change to the design was a bad idea. The same thing applies to this, even if a DM restricted non-source material from the game because of uncertainty or fear, it doesn't necessarily mean the restriction is a bad idea.
I don't think this is going anywhere.
It doesn't need to go anywhere. There's nothing to be figured out here, no right or wrong.
Do you think that the only reason to enforce rules is fear? Because that is the tone I'm getting, that you wouldn't accept any other reason for making a rule valid. Seems sort of narrow...
Fear covers a lot of stuff.
I think its quite possible to restrict something because of detrimental effects without descending to 'fear'...how about something is just annoying or frustrating to deal with? Or that the game is more fun without x (death?) or y?
Fear of it becoming annoying or frustrating is still fear.
If you spoke with an engineer about why he made changes to a design that he thought improved on the design, would you accuse him of being afraid of the old design? Seems sort of absurd.
It might, but I didn't say tath.
Now I suppose that could be a valid point if it was adding airbags, seatbelts, turn signals, safety glass, etc, but that doesn't mean that the change to the design was a bad idea.
Who said that doing something out of fear was a bad idea?
The same thing applies to this, even if a DM restricted non-source material from the game because of uncertainty or fear, it doesn't necessarily mean the restriction is a bad idea.
No, it doesn't. Fear is not always bad, but it tends to limit flexibility and voluntary risk taking.
I don't think this is going anywhere.
It doesn't need to go anywhere. There's nothing to be figured out here, no right or wrong.Do you think that the only reason to enforce rules is fear? Because that is the tone I'm getting, that you wouldn't accept any other reason for making a rule valid. Seems sort of narrow...
Fear covers a lot of stuff.I think its quite possible to restrict something because of detrimental effects without descending to 'fear'...how about something is just annoying or frustrating to deal with? Or that the game is more fun without x (death?) or y?
Fear of it becoming annoying or frustrating is still fear.If you spoke with an engineer about why he made changes to a design that he thought improved on the design, would you accuse him of being afraid of the old design? Seems sort of absurd.
It might, but I didn't say tath.Now I suppose that could be a valid point if it was adding airbags, seatbelts, turn signals, safety glass, etc, but that doesn't mean that the change to the design was a bad idea.
Who said that doing something out of fear was a bad idea?The same thing applies to this, even if a DM restricted non-source material from the game because of uncertainty or fear, it doesn't necessarily mean the restriction is a bad idea.
No, it doesn't. Fear is not always bad, but it tends to limit flexibility and voluntary risk taking.
Yes, uh ok, hmmm, eh..kinda..maybe, ok...granted, agreed.
Glad we got that cleared up...sort of. lol
If you two are bored, I'm told there's a thread on Batman's alignment you could argue about. That's always highly productive.
Already beat you to that punch.
Bored out of my mind.