Now, that's all well and good for most of the party, being new players, but for myself as an experienced player, it's kind of... limiting. And I'm finding it kind of annoying when I want to take a feat from a book we have that I meet the prerequisites for... and he doesn't want to let me take it because I've already read the subject materiel, and he can't mysteriously introduce it.
It's not a big problem at the moment, but it sure is annoying.
I'm really not sure how to handle this- but my DM has indicated that he wants to be mysterious- that is, he doesn't want the players to read up on the available books, so that he can instead 'reveal' things (spells, magic items, the like) and have it be strange and new and the like.
Now, that's all well and good for most of the party, being new players, but for myself as an experienced player, it's kind of... limiting. And I'm finding it kind of annoying when I want to take a feat from a book we have that I meet the prerequisites for... and he doesn't want to let me take it because I've already read the subject materiel, and he can't mysteriously introduce it.
It's not a big problem at the moment, but it sure is annoying.
This could be an attempt of the DM to have "organic" characters form from the story instead of a preconception of what you want your character to become before meeting the first NPC.
Have a talk with the guy, if he's not doing the above, or trying to limit your ability to build an optimized (read: overpowered) character then I would suggest write a list of everything you want and give it to him out of session and ask that he works it in if possible.
The DM gets to build the setting and npcs, he shouldn't be building the PCs, too. That way lies madness.
That's silly. The only books the players shouldn't really read is the DMG, Campaign Guides, and maybe stuff like Open Grave/Manual of the Planes. Otherwise, how is the player to know what options there are for advancement. The GM needs to set better expectations for the group and needs to put up a concise "Do not read" list. And if he list everything, tell him he's being silly.
And the monster manuals.
And the monster manuals.
You need the Animals for AC/Mount and Wildshape and some of the others for summons sadly. I tried so hard to get by without the 3.5 MM (as DM I used my own monsters) , but then I played a Druid....
You need the Animals for AC/Mount and Wildshape and some of the others for summons sadly. I tried so hard to get by without the 3.5 MM (as DM I used my own monsters) , but then I played a Druid....
Aye that is true, what I mostly meant was that a player shouldn't be going through the monster manuals and memorising certain things.
i dont think that this is too unreasonable to limit the number of books you can use. just talk to him though and ask which books are going to be part of the world and how you can work them into the game. im sure that if you can reasonably justify your choices from different books it wont be too big of a problem... gl hf
He is banning everything until he tells them it exist. Basically no TWF until the DM says "you know people can fight with two weapons".
If that was me he would have to drop that silliness or I would be sitting in the DM's chair.
Now, he's been somewhat good at it, but there's certain things- like the spell compendium that we have access to and he's been going "Oh, they're reading the spell compendium, they can't actually use ANY of these spells- even if they're divine casters. They have to research them- and I'd have to introduce the spell to them first"
Now, I can understand making an organic campaign and the like, but it's damned annoying to have this material being available RIGHT HERE, and being told that every spell we read that he hasn't introduced will be banned.
I mean, that's what, pretty much the entire book, considering I've read the entire book?
We already have a limited library of books- and while he's not so nazi to be banning everything, pretty much anything in non-PHB books is "I'd have to reread the book first, and introduce it"
Now, he's been somewhat good at it, but there's certain things- like the spell compendium that we have access to and he's been going "Oh, they're reading the spell compendium, they can't actually use ANY of these spells- even if they're divine casters. They have to research them- and I'd have to introduce the spell to them first"
Now, I can understand making an organic campaign and the like, but it's damned annoying to have this material being available RIGHT HERE, and being told that every spell we read that he hasn't introduced will be banned.
I mean, that's what, pretty much the entire book, considering I've read the entire book?
Is this his first time DM'ing? I would just pull him off to the side and inform him the campaign is not fun the way he is doing it.
3.5 campaign? I can understand him now. Spell Compendium is one of the most broken books, and Divine Casters are bad enough.
He is not trying to ban stuff. He just has one of those ideas that is suppose to make the campaign fun, but is annoying the players. It is part of the "Story".
On the other hand the DM may be using that as an excuse since he does not want to ban things outright.
Maybe the OP should just give the DM an invite so he can speak for himself.
That's silly. The only books the players shouldn't really read is the DMG, Campaign Guides, and maybe stuff like Open Grave/Manual of the Planes. Otherwise, how is the player to know what options there are for advancement. The GM needs to set better expectations for the group and needs to put up a concise "Do not read" list. And if he list everything, tell him he's being silly.
What, the D&D Police are going to arrest me if I buy my own DMG? Too late, I already did. I guess I'll hear the knock soon.
As for the DM being "mysterious", the mystery should be the plot, not the rules. Sounds to me like the DM has an ll Duce complex he's trying to cover up. The DM runs the game; he's not the players' lord and master.
Caveat: If the DM is running a published adventure arc, sure, that is something the players shouldn't read until way after the adventure is over and has no further effect on the campaign if they have any interest in doing so.
Having the spell compendium be more of a list of spell ideas that need to be researched is totally fine. At least he's allowing you access to it rather than banning it outright, which I'd probably do.
Rather than complain about the rule itself, I'd tell him that the narrative requirement is a pain for you as an experienced player. See if you can get him to waive at least that much. In 3x, with its massive glut of incredibly varied-level source material, limiting what you have available (especially as it sounds like he's not intimately familiar with every sourcebook) is not a cruel or unusual request.
If he only lets your characters know about a few spells, then you HAVE to pick those spells when you level. The way you worded it, you'd have to research a spell you see someone else do before you can use it yourself? The P/Cs have no cool tricks, no signature moves/spells, and no "OMFG, what did he just do?" abilities. The get to sneak around (assuming they saw someone else sneak so they know it can happen) and try to see what others can somehow do on their own before they can use it. The alternative: get blown up by the spell you want before you can use it. Fun way to get Meteor Swarm.
Speaking as a DM AND a player, I do not approve at all.
I can understand limiting certain books, but some books exist solely as player references. I've been DMing for over 7 years now, and I do not allow players to crack open a Monster Manual during a session. If a player brings me something from a player resource (such as a Complete book in 3.5 or Martial Power/Adventurer's Vault in 4e), I would peruse it and consider it. Especially running 4e, when the DMg suggest that your players construct a "wish list" of magic items each level mand the DM chooses the magic itme treasure placement from that.
Thus, when it was my turn to DM, I tried creating a so-called "organic" system, where players would use their experience points to buy certain features, such as feats, skill points, class levels, etc. I even created some very basic custom classes.
I thought it was a good idea, because this allowed them the freedom to customize their characters without the typical restrictions, while preventing them from breaking their characters or finding any loopholes too quickly. Boy was I wrong!
They outright hated the idea, since it was a total deviation from the D&D system they had committed so much time to studying and memorizing. Of course, that was my whole point, but in the end, I relented. As DM, my number one priority was making sure everyone had fun.
The good side is that since I checked with them before starting the adventure and listened to their wishes, they listened to mine and dialed back on the min/maxing.
That's silly. The only books the players shouldn't really read is the DMG, Campaign Guides, and maybe stuff like Open Grave/Manual of the Planes. Otherwise, how is the player to know what options there are for advancement. The GM needs to set better expectations for the group and needs to put up a concise "Do not read" list. And if he list everything, tell him he's being silly.
Oops.
Nobody told me I shouldn't buy and memorize MotP, Open Grave, and the Forgotten Realms 4e books.
Oh well.
shopping for magic items when creating characters
prestige classes
magic item creation rules (for those who want custom magic items)
weather/terrain rules
spell research rules.
homebrew rules (assuming your dm lets you homebrew X race or class or swap X ability for Y abiltiy)
wealth by level
abilities of magi mart items
reasons to read a monster manual
familiars
animal companions
mounts
race options
changes applied by said race.
he should just limit selections until he has the chance to look over the specific material, and he definitely should NOT tell you that you can't even read the books.
I'm really not sure how to handle this- but my DM has indicated that he wants to be mysterious- that is, he doesn't want the players to read up on the available books, so that he can instead 'reveal' things (spells, magic items, the like) and have it be strange and new and the like.
Now, that's all well and good for most of the party, being new players, but for myself as an experienced player, it's kind of... limiting. And I'm finding it kind of annoying when I want to take a feat from a book we have that I meet the prerequisites for... and he doesn't want to let me take it because I've already read the subject materiel, and he can't mysteriously introduce it.
It's not a big problem at the moment, but it sure is annoying.
That's not mysterious, it's restrictive. Now being restrictive isn't a bad thing if done right but it can be abused. You can restrict access to feats, spells, magic items and call that mysterious though.
His method of rationing things to appeaar story driven just seems contrived and frustrating for a player. If he just said we are only using core, or core plus the complete series or whatever combination would get things out in the open first. Everyone would know the ground rules and wouldn't later be disappointed that important parts of a potential build were left out leaving the character adrift finding their goal doesn't exist any longer.
This DM doesn't like Tieflings or Dragonborn because they're too "exotic."
The DM runs the game; he's not the players' lord and master.
I for one welcome our Dungeon Master overlords.
I had a DM a while back that did similar stuff. Wouldn't let any of the players play/have anything interesting, because supposedly it made the campaign world less interesting. It was annoying as hell.
This DM doesn't like Tieflings or Dragonborn because they're too "exotic."
I would think you see this from some older dms that are a little too attached to the "old days" where things were pretty vanilla in comparison to the wild variety of 3.5.
I for one welcome our Dungeon Master overlords.
But enough about the Democrats ...
I would think you see this from some older dms that are a little too attached to the "old days" where things were pretty vanilla in comparison to the wild variety of 3.5.
my dm bans any rogue concept that is not a common thief. (at minimum it has to have the trapfinding stuff, sleight of hand, larceny, a shortsword, leather armor, and a high dexterity.) he does not like ninja, the 40 thieves of solomon, assassins, bandits, or anything that is not a common plain vanilla thief. every time i tried to create a unique rogue that wasn't a plain vanilla thief, he said "no".
I would think you see this from some older dms that are a little too attached to the "old days" where things were pretty vanilla in comparison to the wild variety of 3.5.
That's EXACTLY what this guy was!
my dm bans any rogue concept that is not a common thief. (at minimum it has to have the trapfinding stuff, sleight of hand, larceny, a shortsword, leather armor, and a high dexterity.) he does not like ninja, the 40 thieves of solomon, assassins, bandits, or anything that is not a common plain vanilla thief. every time i tried to create a unique rogue that wasn't a plain vanilla thief, he said "no".
Uh...I had a guy play an elven rogue in my long-running 3.5 campaign, and he didn't have any ranks in Sleight of Hand. He was a scout. He was adept at finding/disabling traps, being stealthy, and even decent at blubbing his way out of a bad situation. Went into Thief-Acrobat for a PrC. Anything wrong with that concept? No, he came from an elven forest town, he's was CG, didn't steal, murder, or anything like that, but he was trained to be a forward scout for his home.
Not that far-fetched of a concept, and Rogue was the class that worked best to make it happen.
my dm bans any rogue concept that is not a common thief. (at minimum it has to have the trapfinding stuff, sleight of hand, larceny, a shortsword, leather armor, and a high dexterity.) he does not like ninja, the 40 thieves of solomon, assassins, bandits, or anything that is not a common plain vanilla thief. every time i tried to create a unique rogue that wasn't a plain vanilla thief, he said "no".
Did you ask him if he wanted to roll your dice, and keep track of your hit points, too?
As a DM, I only allowed core + Complete books + Magic Item Compendium. Spells from the Spell Compendium were there as treasure. (So it actually made finding scrolls fun.)
Did you ask him if he wanted to roll your dice, and keep track of your hit points, too?
no. i didn't. i should have though.
he said no to the "Archer", the "Ninja", The "Spy", The "Bandit", the "Assassin", the "Duelist" the "Pirate" and The "Acrobatic swordsman".
all of which are roguelike concepts. all of which i tried.
no. i didn't. i should have though.
he said no to the "Archer", the "Ninja", The "Spy", The "Bandit", the "Assassin", the "Duelist" the "Pirate" and The "Acrobatic swordsman".
all of which are roguelike concepts. all of which i tried.
You have more patience than me. I would have left the group or started DM'ing in hopes of finding another group. It is not like you had anywhere to go but up.
Did you ask him if he wanted to roll your dice, and keep track of your hit points, too?
Goodness gracious there was a DM just like that way back when in college during my 2E days. He really found it offensive players knew what their character's hit points were because "hit points are an out of character concept".
Goodness gracious there was a DM just like that way back when in college during my 2E days. He really found it offensive players knew what their character's hit points were because "hit points are an out of character concept".
HAH
Did he manually add your enhancement bonuses to your attacks and damage too? I always walk around calling things a "+1 sword."
Did you ask him if he wanted to roll your dice, and keep track of your hit points, too?
Funny, because in the military I played a FR 3e with a DM who was dead-set on rolling all of our dices.
The game didn't last for long, for obvious reasons...
HAH
Did he manually add your enhancement bonuses to your attacks and damage too? I always walk around calling things a "+1 sword."
Not just him, but it was common practice back then to make it difficult to identify items. DMs lorded over the players "You just don't know." It was a continuous case of "I hit AC 3 (2E game), not counting whatever the plus the sword has." or some variation there of. It was annoying.
Funny, because in the military I played a FR 3e with a DM who was dead-set on rolling all of our dices.
The game didn't last for long, for obvious reasons...
What was his rank? Perhaps the authority given to him by virtue of being DM went to his head due to lack of enough authority in the military where he always has to follow orders.
Of course, such Il Duce attitude happens with DMs not in/from the military, but the principle is the same.
What was his rank? Perhaps the authority given to him by virtue of being DM went to his head due to lack of enough authority in the military where he always has to follow orders.
Of course, such Il Duce attitude happens with DMs not in/from the military, but the principle is the same.
He was a private, just like me. But two other players were corporals, so it might be that he liked being in over-authority over those two that normally ordered him around.
He was a private, just like me. But two other players were corporals, so it might be that he liked being in over-authority over those two that normally ordered him around.
may i ask what his reasoning was for rolling your dice?
may i ask what his reasoning was for rolling your dice?
Immersion of course, to take away any meta-game thoughts.
Now that I think about it, he kept our sheets from us even during the sessions. Ah some interesting personalities you encounter sometimes
So not only is our materiel restricted until he 'introduces it', but apparently he likes to use third party materiel "Because of the names"
I'm thinking a big fan of Flavour-As-Written, not Flavour-as-you-bloody-make-it-IC. *sigh* I'm totally taking advantage of this and trying to get him to let me take a Lucid Cernobite. The cheese. Oh the cheese.
Immersion of course, to take away any meta-game thoughts.
Now that I think about it, he kept our sheets from us even during the sessions. Ah some interesting personalities you encounter sometimes
sounds about as immersive as watching television, except that you had to listen to him tell a story and imagine it yourself. what a waste of time.
sounds about as immersive as watching television, except that you had to listen to him tell a story and imagine it yourself. what a waste of time.
Heh, yeah I would've tell him to put his dice somewhere where the sun don't shine, if it weren't for being in the military and rarely getting the chance to play
Heh, yeah I would've tell him to put his dice somewhere where the sun don't shine, if it weren't for being in the military and rarely getting the chance to play
Too bad you never got the chance to actually play.
;)
It's pretty bad form, as a DM, to disallow players knowledge of 3.5 prestige classes...
Prestige classes in 3.5 were purely up to the DM's discretion. Many of them, if not the majority, were campaign-world specific, and thus inappropriate for most DM created worlds. If you managed to get a spineless DM who actually allowed you to dictate to him what you'd be using... wow.
As for the OP: The DM doesn't want you looking through books to build your character. He wants your character to be organically created, from things that are encountered in the game. Not an unreasonable request. If it's not fun for you, stop playing in the game.
As for the OP: The DM doesn't want you looking through books to build your character. He wants your character to be organically created, from things that are encountered in the game. Not an unreasonable request. If it's not fun for you, stop playing in the game.
That is unreasonable. To say I can't use spring attack or TWF until I see it first makes no sense. If the DM says from levels 1 to X you are in training, and then let them level up normally once they reach level X is something I have seen done, but the DMPC in that case was a mentor. Eventually he was written out of the story, but there was also an in-game reason that added to the story other than because the DM is afraid to let the players make their own characters.
Another example is that magic was lost years ago, and the players are among a very small number of people for whatever reason that can use magic. As the quest goes on they discover more spells, and eventually find some Tome that gives them access to all the PHB spells. The DM could say the Tome has to be translated. Each time the caster has to learn new spells he translated another spell. For other caster types he could make up another reason.
I do stand with you on the point that the OP should leave if he is really unhappy. There is no point in playing a game he does not enjoy.
PS: Maybe the DM will do these things or something similar, but since we only have the OP's word that is all I can go on
Today I was going through something he explicitly allowed, picked a feat, and was told that I can't take it because it's too cheesy. But that he 'likes the name'.
Similarly, he told me that while he liked the flavour of the feat "Up the Walls", I couldn't take it unless it was called Spiderman. Dead serious. Taking this flavour-as-written thing just a teensy bit too far, and having no idea what he's allowing or disallowing- his 'policy' on that has never been particularly clear.
Now, that all being said, he has lightened up a bit. It used to be that I'd go to him with feat ideas and he'd shoot them down straight out. Now he's at least listening, which is good.
However, I think he's... got some weird ideas. He repeatedly states that Core is allowed. But then shoots me down when I try to take certain feats (ie: "Prove to me that a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon" *I do so* "You still can't take it. I'll introduce something that you can though- maybe from this third party book of feats that I like the names of. Except that one. Or those. Or those there. Or this one which the Paladin can take but you can't.")
Uh yeah. Also keeps insisting that anything from TSR is valid.
Now, this continues to bamboozle me, because as we all know, TSR DID NOT PRODUCE THIRD EDITION, LET ALONE 3.5.
The systems are not remotely balanced for use with eachother. But hey, TSR materiel is apparently allowed without any DM oversight. It's only these... newfangled books that he has, but apparently isn't familiar with to let me use stuff in them.
Make no mistake- I am having fun in the camapaign. But the DM doesn't seem to have a straight policy on what he'll allow or disallow, other then "If you've read it, and I haven't explicitly stated it's allowed, it probably isn't."
Today I was going through something he explicitly allowed, picked a feat, and was told that I can't take it because it's too cheesy. But that he 'likes the name'.
Similarly, he told me that while he liked the flavour of the feat "Up the Walls", I couldn't take it unless it was called Spiderman. Dead serious. Taking this flavour-as-written thing just a teensy bit too far, and having no idea what he's allowing or disallowing- his 'policy' on that has never been particularly clear.
Now, that all being said, he has lightened up a bit. It used to be that I'd go to him with feat ideas and he'd shoot them down straight out. Now he's at least listening, which is good.
However, I think he's... got some weird ideas. He repeatedly states that Core is allowed. But then shoots me down when I try to take certain feats (ie: "Prove to me that a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon" *I do so* "You still can't take it. I'll introduce something that you can though- maybe from this third party book of feats that I like the names of. Except that one. Or those. Or those there. Or this one which the Paladin can take but you can't.")
Uh yeah. Also keeps insisting that anything from TSR is valid.
Now, this continues to bamboozle me, because as we all know, TSR DID NOT PRODUCE THIRD EDITION, LET ALONE 3.5.
The systems are not remotely balanced for use with eachother. But hey, TSR materiel is apparently allowed without any DM oversight. It's only these... newfangled books that he has, but apparently isn't familiar with to let me use stuff in them.
You are more patient than me. Good luck with your adventures.
As for the OP: The DM doesn't want you looking through books to build your character. He wants your character to be organically created, from things that are encountered in the game. Not an unreasonable request. If it's not fun for you, stop playing in the game.
I've got a better idea, because I get sick and tired of people telling others to "stop playing." Finding groups is not easy, and EVERYONE (including the DM) should try to compromise a little to make sure everybody has fun.
Organically created? Things encountered in game? Unless this is the master DM and he knows how to let players encounter situations that allow their character to grow "organically" in the way that they want to build him, then the DM should shut the hell up and just let them do what they want. I'm not talking about using Forgotten Realms PrC's in a Greyhawk campaign. I'm talking about the DM telling a player he can't even use the DMG PrC's because the player hasn't roleplayed out his progression to the class. It's a lame excuse for lazy DM'ing.
As a player, I have a character concept in mind and I move my character toward it, regardless of whether the DM gives an avenue for that progression. Just because my level 1 rogue planned for arcane trickster hasn't spent 20 years studying under some wizard shouldn't mean I can't take my first level of wizard.
Unless you're a fabulous DM that is able to work with your players and work their dreams for their characters into the plot of the story, don't set these kinds of limitations on them. It reeks of poor DM'ing and lack of empathy.
Make no mistake- I am having fun in the camapaign. But the DM doesn't seem to have a straight policy on what he'll allow or disallow, other then "If you've read it, and I haven't explicitly stated it's allowed, it probably isn't."
Today I was going through something he explicitly allowed, picked a feat, and was told that I can't take it because it's too cheesy. But that he 'likes the name'.
Similarly, he told me that while he liked the flavour of the feat "Up the Walls", I couldn't take it unless it was called Spiderman. Dead serious. Taking this flavour-as-written thing just a teensy bit too far, and having no idea what he's allowing or disallowing- his 'policy' on that has never been particularly clear.
Now, that all being said, he has lightened up a bit. It used to be that I'd go to him with feat ideas and he'd shoot them down straight out. Now he's at least listening, which is good.
However, I think he's... got some weird ideas. He repeatedly states that Core is allowed. But then shoots me down when I try to take certain feats (ie: "Prove to me that a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon" *I do so* "You still can't take it. I'll introduce something that you can though- maybe from this third party book of feats that I like the names of. Except that one. Or those. Or those there. Or this one which the Paladin can take but you can't.")
Uh yeah. Also keeps insisting that anything from TSR is valid.
Now, this continues to bamboozle me, because as we all know, TSR DID NOT PRODUCE THIRD EDITION, LET ALONE 3.5.
The systems are not remotely balanced for use with eachother. But hey, TSR materiel is apparently allowed without any DM oversight. It's only these... newfangled books that he has, but apparently isn't familiar with to let me use stuff in them.
You have more patience that I do, too.
By now, I would have told him "Dude, you will either allow core, or you won't. Either let me use my Player's Handbook the way it was meant to be used or suck on the fact that you're a powermonger with no comprehension of game balance."
Personally he just sounds like a total idiot.
I've got a better idea, because I get sick and tired of people telling others to "stop playing." Finding groups is not easy, and EVERYONE (including the DM) should try to compromise a little to make sure everybody has fun.
No, because bad D&D is worse than no D&D at all. And people don't change. From the further posts of the OP, it would appear that his DM is a bit of an idiot. He's better off going home and reading a book. Or playing in an online D&D game, as he's obviously got access to the Internet.
No, because bad D&D is worse than no D&D at all. And people don't change.
yet another cliche that i *hate.* my DM is also stupid. he doesn't know the rules, he has a DM vs. players attitude, and he doesn't have much of a clue how anything except attacks and damage work. On top of that, he has it out for me because I play arcane spellcasters, primarily, and he takes every chance he can get to try to do as much damage to me as possible.
I still play, and I still have fun. Much of that is because I do know the rules, and I have no fear about calling him out and pointing to the rulebooks.
Unfortunately, I'm sick. So, I'm sitting around, too hopped up on medication to do anything but post on these boards.
Whereas for most, it's opportunity cost. D&D is pretty fun. When it's a game with annoying players or a bad DM, it's not fun, so I do something else instead. I'm not so starved for entertainment that I'd participate in a game that was less than very good. There's tons of other things to do.
Unfortunately, I'm sick. So, I'm sitting around, too hopped up on medication to do anything but post on these boards.
don't worry, i know the feeling
It doesn't really hurt that much to play along, though. However, if a DM wants to play a tabletop game and wants the players to not have much knowledge of it, its better to choose a game which the players are new to rather than tell them to pretend they don't know what already exists.
Eh. I have no issue with a DM dictating what does and doesn't go into his game, any kind of freaked out houserule, it's his prerogative. As long as it is fully disclosed to new players before they make a character. And if the player doesn't like it, the player shouldn't make a character.