In the current campaign we are playing (there is also another one running but that's another matter) our DM chose a different campaign setting. I don't know where he found it but definitely it is not his and it is a pretty good setting.
Everything's fine so far but the problem is that after my first character died - we all began at level 1 and my character died a little after he reached level 2 due to really bad luck of me - I rerolled and decided to give a try on the dragon disciple project. Truth be told this class exists for years and seriously it's not the best prestige class around. But I wanted to give it a try, see how things go, how effective it is etc.
I reenter with a 2nd level character and thinking of building him like this. 1st level duskblade and rest into fighter. Maybe that's not the best thing to do to meet the requirements to enter the prestige class but I didn't want to make an optimized character - even picking that prestige class wasn't the bet thing to do in optimization terms! I simply wanted to play a fighter-like type of character with draconic flavor.
Long introduction. Now the problem - at least for me - that since he got his 1st level as a duskblade I had to be taught by elves. I, personally, and I repeat personally, am an elf hater. No offense towards the ones who like elves but this is just my opinion and I have never played non human. I do not want to get more into this, this is not the reason I am making this post so as to start a discussion about liking or non liking elves.
Being taught by elves meant I was raised among them. Practically this meant that my character was an elf in all respects except his traits. For 3 sessions I was next to dead quiet in the table and all that I did was to roll dice in combat only. I talked to the DM about my disliking and he offered to change my character's background. So this "revised" background was that instead of a duskblade level he had a dread necro level. Good or bad is irrelevant right now technically, I only wanted a class to get the ranks and spontaneous casting to meet the requirements for the prestige.
Now here is where the problem begins. I chose tomb tainted sould for my character among his other feats. Last night (we reached level 4 btw) there was a situation where after combat my character was injured and he used charnel touch to heal himself. The druid of the group (the only divine caster that is) acting in character said how I did that(heal my own wounds). I said in character that my innate arcane power helps me do that and he said "oh nice". In character still that is.
DM said that since my character was never injured before(which is true) and since the arcane power is innate for him, he is not controlling it full still. As such he doesn't know that his touch is harmful to others and others use of positive energy on him is harmful to him. After another combat the dwarf fighter in the group asked my character to heal him. Yes you read right. Druid was sort on spells so he asked me. You can easily guess what happened since the dwarf was at about 4 hp at that time.
Long story short the rest of the group now sees me as someone with ummm "heretic" powers and such. My character's main concept is to be a fighter like the dwarf, a Lawful Neutral to be precise with respect to his land, baron and duke (different campaign setting like I said earlier) and most if his pre-presige levels will be on figther.
Has anyone experienced something similar in the past? Not be trusted by his own teammmates?
Thanks in advance.
I will say I think your DM is trying to punish you a bit. I know I would. Having an odd prejudice against a fictional race of people that don't exist, to the point of wanting to go back and change the character and part of history to get around it? As a DM, if you did that in my campaign...well first I'd tell you no, but it's fine to be a self-hating human over it IC.....but second, if I actually did it, I'd not step in any time the character got hard for you. Fact is, you rolled it one way, then threw your own prejudices into the character and hated how it came out. A DM is going to be annoyed with this.
Don't be surprised if you end up in a town filled with elves and nothing else.
I played a sorcerer that was exactly in your character's situation as it stands now, actually. He was a Sorc in 2.0. To get more "character points" to spend on his abilities, I took the "irritating personality" handicap.
This meant that, since he had a fascination with necromancy, every time dead bodies were involved, he'd get all excited and start carving them up in front of the party to see how they worked. It took me a small forever to get the party to trust me.
As an aside, most PC's who are driven by experienced players WON'T trust you at first, because they know how D&D can go. Man up, dude, it's all part of the game.
Which, to those who play, I lose the game.
Edit: I will give you props for not trying to optimize, and instead just seeing what you can build.
I had to be taught by elves. I, personally, and I repeat personally, am an elf hater.
BS. Your DM likely knows your predilection against them and could VERY EASILLY had made adjustments to facilitate better thematics (Rule 0 anyone?). It's not elf-only btw, but oh, no, he's gonna' be a dick about it despite PC sensibilities and the antagonism it's likely to cause. If it were elf only, there'd be hardly any human, or other races as duskblades at all. The tradition has been started as a premee bladesinger, but, like most things, after a long time, secrets gets out, it's taught, bla bla bla.
So many ways he could've used a little creative muscle, but no, he screwed you instead (big red flag here). The injustice is that it's an easy fix, all thematic, no mechanic. Still dropped the ball...So this "revised" background was that instead of a duskblade level he had a dread necro level. Good or bad is irrelevant right now technically, I only wanted a class to get the ranks and spontaneous casting to meet the requirements for the prestige.
Problem just keeps snowballing, doesn't it? Man, I feel for you.
It's one thing to be railroaded in an in game decision (you zig not zag), but another to have the basic building blocks forced upon you. Totally uncool. And then, later, further punish you above and beyond the typical inter-party conflict that often comes w/ this sort of dealing?The druid of the group (the only divine caster that is) acting in character said how I did that(heal my own wounds). I said in character that my innate arcane power helps me do that and he said "oh nice". In character still that is.
Does the druid have a brain (j/k, he's trying to RP well w/ the crap hand he was delt), or more precisely, Spellcraft or Know Religion or Arcana? This "power" is w/in the purview of those skills and witnessing it 1st hand (he saw you, right?) should have prompted a roll to figure it out. It's basically a glorifed Inflict ___ Wounds really, not some super mysterious power that no one could ever figure out.
Plus, c'mon, the feat is pretty telling in your emaciation and macabre visage.DM said that since my character was never injured before(which is true)...
But you healed yourself prior?No, BS. The understanding would be expressed as a given. It's a class power & a feat, not some wild talent you're not 100% of. You're main means of attack an unknown?
...and since the arcane power is innate for him, he is not controlling it full still. As such he doesn't know that his touch is harmful to others and others use of positive energy on him is harmful to him.
Even more BS. Charnel Touch's basic purpose is TO BE HARMFUL TO OTHERS (living). IMO, you're really getting screwed here, but you're quite a sport for taking it on the chin so stoically. Still, you should not suffer fools.
As if it needs decyphering...You have Spellcraft and some Knowledges too, I'd wager (see above)? Not that your basic instinct, inner awareness, or formal training would've covered this at all? It should be a given IMO...
This is basic negative energy you're channeling, not a convuluted high level transmutation or some sh-t. It's a very simple concept; your basic polarity has changed per the feat (which you'd know; it's all or nothing). Were it still an unknown variable at some point (MAJOR houserule btw), you'd still be training to "learn it" and not have achieved it (the feat or the ability), thusly, not a full blown class lvl. Like an adept is to a cleric as it were.
In other words, you're being hamstrung most unfairly. I'd constest this.After another combat the dwarf fighter in the group asked my character to heal him. Yes you read right. Druid was sort on spells so he asked me. You can easily guess what happened since the dwarf was at about 4 hp at that time.
So, now, another player must endure the slings and arrows of bad DM'ing too? C'mon. Even if you were ignorant of your feat & power (which you wouldn't be), the dwarf is probably a little wary of someone who looks very corpse-like (see feat) touching him, especially when it's a big mystery, no? This whole thematic/mechanical arguement fostered by the DM doesn't hold water.Long story short the rest of the group now sees me as someone with ummm "heretic" powers and such.
The only realistic portion I've seen thus far. If they've seen you use it in combat, let alone down time, chances are that would prompt a roll as well to learn what's up. It's unfair to presume, ney, force this ignorance upon you/them.
Yes, it's totally unnatural. The druid, specifically, would probably not suffer your abberant ways (undead things & powers are outside of the natural order, bla bla bla). This is veyr typical and I feel for you as I can see you're trying to go w/ the flow (DM's narrative), but hitting every snag in the road (and that poor dwarf).
Why not just be a bard or a sorcerer to qualify for Dragon Disciple?
He wants to use the swishy slashy things lots.
But there are many classes that do this and throw spells.
Hell, a high-dex sorcerer that spends a feat on WF and uses a rapier can be good to have in a fight. DD will handle the AC for you.
My character is not me so he has no problems towards elves. But having to be forced to, in practice, play an elf is something that I didn't want to.What isn't rational in this? And I am not talking about my dislike on elves. That is total personal preference. I am referring to me being forced to play a game that as a game is supposed to be fun. Why play something when there isn't fun?
And yes of course the DM was annoyed by that. But it was clearly stated by me that I didn't want my duskblade to be taught by the elves. And as such this "revision" of character began. Truth be told DM was annoyed but I informed him about my disliking. I gave it a try and harldy managed to play a session or two. What is hard to understand that I didn't want to play something that I didn't like?
Anyway I kinda didn't get this hostility towards me. I just asked if someone had a similar situation in the past (not being trusted by his teammates that is)not being criticized about my likes or dislikes on the game.
Shadow Viper I just wanted to try something different that I haven't tried before including both Dread Necro and DD.
1 Ton Ghost thanks for the understanding. Anyway my character is dead now, the only one from the group during that combat, so I guess the problem is over now. Gonna try a sorcerer now.
Your character was doomed to horrible death, I'm afraid. Annoying your DM is like annoying the ref. The fact the character died already was probably merciful, I've seen even the best DMs draw out long tortures over several levels on players who react as you did. It sounds like he set you up for a fall just to get the problem over with.
You still don't understand, do you? Please read my entire thread instead of selecting pieces and get the proper meaning instead of jumping to conclussions.
As for DMs who like to torture players, too bad for them(and that is for the DMs not the players)who will be left alone and find no players to play with.
I don't know how things in your gaming community work but we don't tolerate this in our community.
Hard? No? Yes? Apologies...
./sigh
You still don't understand, do you? Please read my entire thread instead of selecting pieces and get the proper meaning instead of jumping to conclussions.
As for DMs who like to torture players, too bad for them(and that is for the DMs not the players)who will be left alone and find no players to play with.
I don't know how things in your gaming community work but we don't tolerate this in our community.
Hard? No? Yes? Apologies...
If I hadn't read it all, I'd be giving you leeway.
You...define being made to have an elven background....torture? *twitch*
I'm totally siding with your DM on this one. And it sounds like the other players did, too, because they let you wander into a fight alone. If it wasn't "tolerated" you wouldn't have been screwed.
1 Ton Ghost thanks for the understanding. Anyway my character is dead now, the only one from the group during that combat, so I guess the problem is over now. Gonna try a sorcerer now.
Damn...my bad. Sorry to hear of you untimely demise. For what it's worth, I think you got a raw deal from the start; you were unfairly disadvantaged under, dare-I-say, really flimsy pretenses (sub par DM'ing).If you still fancy a gish-esque character & got your sights set on Sor, a wand sheath (Dungeonscape) in your main melee implement loaded w/ True Strike or Swift True Strike might fit the bill, especially in terms of Power Attack or some fancy combat principle (Disarm, Trip, etc).
Otherwise, you should've been fine as is w/ your previous Duskblade incarnation. For the record, elf bred or elven tutelage to make it happen is for the birds and a point blank case of DM's creative license, not RAW or canon.
For the record, elf bred or elven tutelage to make it happen is for the birds and a point blank case of DM's creative license, not RAW or canon.
You should read the Races and Alignment sections of the Duskblade entry on page 19 of the 3.5 PHBII.
The initial inception of "duskblade" as an elven institution is fine. It's old, time honored, bla bla bla. I hold to that understanding myself. It's thematically apt and I would not debate that they didn't discover/invent it. But, like all things, knowledge diffuses and permeates other cultures.
What I'm saying is, to imply that a PC must yield to the DM's discretion in that he must:
-Be an elf
-Be raised by them
-Be groomed for the class by them
Is limiting, unfair, and more than a little foolish. That's like a good many insisiting on the dragon blood motif for all sorcerers, any other creative design need not apply. It stifles imagination and creativity which, correct me if I'm wrong, this game is supposed to inspire, right?
There really is nothing unfair about it, it may be limiting yes. However a person always has the option of playing a different class.
And just because a DM does something 'different' doesn't make him/her wrong ;)
It doesn't matter now, I created a sorcerer and since the party lacks a dedicated arcane caster I will cover that. We had a session and enjoyed it a lot. Hadn't played one for a while and the session was quite fun, both in rp and technical terms
.I like the Gish idea a lot but I will save it for another campaign. ;)
knowledge diffuses and permeates other cultures.
Then why isn't Druidic a standard starting language instead of a secret one?
Do you realize how rarely cultures REALLY interact peaceably in D&D?
Corvus it seems you misunderstood me and act a bit hostile. No I didn't want to do flashy things or be the "cool" dark guy in the party. And saying that I don't like elves personally is totally my opinion and under no circumstances am I obliged to do something in game that I don't like.
My character is not me so he has no problems towards elves. But having to be forced to, in practice, play an elf is something that I didn't want to.What isn't rational in this? And I am not talking about my dislike on elves. That is total personal preference. I am referring to me being forced to play a game that as a game is supposed to be fun. Why play something when there isn't fun?
And yes of course the DM was annoyed by that. But it was clearly stated by me that I didn't want my duskblade to be taught by the elves. And as such this "revision" of character began. Truth be told DM was annoyed but I informed him about my disliking. I gave it a try and harldy managed to play a session or two. What is hard to understand that I didn't want to play something that I didn't like?
Anyway I kinda didn't get this hostility towards me. I just asked if someone had a similar situation in the past (not being trusted by his teammates that is)not being criticized about my likes or dislikes on the game.
Shadow Viper I just wanted to try something different that I haven't tried before including both Dread Necro and DD.
1 Ton Ghost thanks for the understanding. Anyway my character is dead now, the only one from the group during that combat, so I guess the problem is over now. Gonna try a sorcerer now.
lets understand this.....Why do you hate elves so?
Long introduction. Now the problem - at least for me - that since he got his 1st level as a duskblade I had to be taught by elves. I, personally, and I repeat personally, am an elf hater. No offense towards the ones who like elves but this is just my opinion and I have never played non human. I do not want to get more into this, this is not the reason I am making this post so as to start a discussion about liking or non liking elves.
Just personal preference.
Just personal preference.
See, if somehow someone shot your cat when you were 4 while wearing pointed ears, then wrapped it in a D&D Elf poster....or you were dressed as an elf one halloween and someone beat you, stole your candy, and told you that it was because you were an elf....Or you were even subjected to having your walls covered in Legolas posters....maybe someone with pointed ears touched your no-no places....
Then maybe I could understand...
...but to trouble a DM who is already concerned with the billions of other things you have to do to run a campaign, after avoiding RP for 3 solid sessions (which makes our job hella hard btw), just to make a midgame change because of minor preference?
Yeah, that character would live only as long as I felt like it.
Blech
Yeah, that character would live only as long as I felt like it.
You must be a bad DM then. You don't let PCs die because you "felt like it".
Really it just depends on how 'old' duskblades are in the/a DM's campaign. If they're fairly old; then yes, other races would likely beable to offer training.
It is presumed as such for a number of reasons. These are the simplest ones IMO.
-There are other races in the PHB II w/ said build.
-Elves are way the Hell older in chronology. The secret, if it was even a secret (likely) was taught, or passed down through the ages, has taken on different forms and styles (feat, racial, etc build options), etc.
However if the class is rather 'new' then most Duskblades would be elves and half-elves(Half-humans, raised in elf communities) and elves would be the only option for training.
It's not though. It is per publishing standards, but those are irrelevant here. But yes, if just discovered in campaign 'x', a degree of exclusion should be met thematically, baring something like, oh, "You're master stole the secret of 'x' from 'y' and you're his secret apprentice" or some sh-t.
There really is nothing unfair about it, it may be limiting yes.
Per normal RAW, it's unfair and kind of a dick move. He got the sh-t end of the stick from a DM that was unwilling to compromise on thematics (if you can believe it), not even a mechanical independent variation.
It's basically implying, "You're gonna' need to play nice w/ all elves (which he doesn't like), take 2 ranks in the language, claim your homeland as some elven locale" or take other measures to suit this, uh, (un)creative vision.
There was a ton of middle ground that could've been explored and but wasn't even entertained casually. That's the real crime, not the class issue itself.
However a person always has the option of playing a different class.
Great, but so what? His choices were limited for him under really flimsy pretext. I thought the point of the game was player's choice, particularly as the edition evolved, more and more customization and choices allowed you to realize your idealized image/concept more carefully...not detract from it.
And just because a DM does something 'different' doesn't make him/her wrong ;)
Never said that. Seperate argument that isn't helping this one (tangent). That kinda' thing needs to be mentioned AHEAD OF TIME and justified, not just a "I said so" approach. The reasoning implied was erroneous.
CorvusDrake: Then why isn't Druidic a standard starting language instead of a secret one?
This point isn't apt here, but I'll try and bear w/ you.
Game balance is the main reason. It's also to impress upon the PCs a sense of exclusion & majesty of the class itself, ie) the cabal of druids suffices well enough to meet this end simply enough. Kinda' like Thieves Cant back in the day. It's naturally occurring ;) vs. learned in a scholastic & martial capacity as it were.
Divinely invested too per the class, not something you were taught by old wise master 'x' when co-mingling magic & weaponry but more along the lines of "an awakening". You take the class, you're elligible. Weird I know, but that's just the way it works.
I wonder if you could sleaze your way into a Pearl of Speech (Druidic)...
Do you realize how rarely cultures REALLY interact peaceably in D&D?
Irrelevant. Furthermore, I'm a big Faerun buff...guess which race taught early humanity it's magical tradition (only to have it come back in bite them in the ass [Karsus' Folly])?
Plus, it's a gaming world packed w/ an overabundance of cultures, which, like out here, compete for resources, territory, etc. It's a moot point.
Lastly, the simplest solution, is often the correct one...
ex) Blade Singer prereq; 1/2 elf or elf only. Duskblade prereq...?
Yeah, that character would live only as long as I felt like it.
Ah, when reason, negotiation, and diplomacy break down among friends before, you can always fall back on spur-of-the moment-cruelty after the fact. Not good DM'ing here. The snags need to be dealt w/ AS THEY ARISE, not after and then delivered w/ a nice little F-U to the PC cuz' explanations were unclear, unwillingness to compromise, use Rule 0, etc.
Actually, this guy said it better...
Smugmug:D&D is about fun, right? If he has a personal bias against playing elves/elven background characters (he even told his DM about it before rolling up the character, giving the elven background a try, which didn't work out) and would be forced to stay with it, that surely wouldn't be fun for him, right? And just to point it out, the OP didn't start this thread to discuss his Duskblade dilemma, but the issue that he isn't (or wasn't, as he is dead now) trusted by his teammembers. This was supposed to be a RP-related thread, as in how he should deal with it, in character, not a "I wan't to be flamed, because having elven background didn't work for me" thread.
Nj Smug.
You don't let PCs die because you "felt like it".
I've been stuck DM'ing ALL THE TIME since '04, never killed a PC, even a lame, disruptive, or incredibly stupid one under these pretexts. Usually, putting them in a situation where their own stupidity offs them fits the bill (which is the irony to most of these cases), or a bad roll nails 'em.
It is presumed as such for a number of reasons. These are the simplest ones IMO.
-There are other races in the PHB II w/ said build.
-Elves are way the Hell older in chronology. The secret, if it was even a secret (likely) was taught, or passed down through the ages, has taken on different forms and styles (feat, racial, etc build options), etc.
It's not though. It is per publishing standards, but those are irrelevant here. But yes, if just discovered in campaign 'x', a degree of exclusion should be met thematically, baring something like, oh, "You're master stole the secret of 'x' from 'y' and you're his secret apprentice" or some sh-t.
As I said, it all depends on the DM's campaign. ;)
You must be a bad DM then. You don't let PCs die because you "felt like it".
Moot. I wouldn't "let the PC die". Part of the DM's job is to really not care much what happens to the PCs any more than the rest of the universe cares about one individual human being.
I wouldn't "let a PC die" that had gone so far as to make my job harder because of a personal issue that really, if that's someone's personal issue, they're not going to handle the real world for a damn. I would blatantly set out to kill that character in a violent and bloody fury. The only person who ever tried to metagame me like that, I blew up the ship he was on, gave him a chance to roll to swim and roll to find a plank to float on, the players fished him out of the water, and because they felt about the same as me about that behavior, they tied him up and took turns beating on the character until its head was paste.
What sort of idiotic DM makes their campaigns with the intent of letting the PC's survive all the time? It's D&D, not Monopoly.
What sort of idiotic DM makes their campaigns with the intent of letting the PC's survive all the time? It's D&D, not Monopoly.
Well said!
This thread has no point right now. It started with a simple question (did anyone have a similar experience in the past and how did he handle it) and now it's all about flaming about someone's dislikes or not.
I'd prefer this to be stopped now.
- Consider him an idiot
- Consider why I wanted to play with someone with such a moronic prejudice
- Tell him to rewrite his stupid background so that he was trained by an elf who lived with humans or something
- Tell him to grow the hell up and say something next time when a problem arose instead of pouting about it
- Consider him an idiot
Yeap. Smugmug made a point here. You Corvus, however didn't and instead you focus more on flaming instead of answering my original question. Too bad.
.
The apt response to delusion is cruel, disillusioning, blunt clarity and condemnation.
The apt response to delusion is cruel, disillusioning, blunt clarity and condemnation.
But maybe not the CoC, savvy? ;)
Play nice. Just a game.
But maybe not the CoC, savvy? ;)
Play nice. Just a game.
Confucious say: Man who play game nice, bad at game.
I'm the kind of guy who uses 3 letter words to screw up spots in the Scrabble board just so they get stuck with letters they can't play while I nickle-and-dime them to death.
I like my universes much like life; cruel and unforgiving.
Confucious say: Man who play game nice, bad at game.
Not talking about playing a game, talking about social discourse here. For example...
glasialabolas: you focus more on flaming instead of answering my original question.
No faux Confucious retort found, however, the fortune taped to my monitor @ work from last month's Schezuan Beef says, "Reflect on yourself before anyone can look down on you."
CD: I'm the kind of guy who uses 3 letter words to screw up spots in the Scrabble board just so they get stuck with letters they can't play while I nickle-and-dime them to death.
I like my universes much like life; cruel and unforgiving.
Offer no quarter, don't expect any. Just saying. Thought you might do well w/ a more objective outlook on the game instead of a personal one is all.
Not talking about playing a game, talking about social discourse here. For example...
No faux Confucious retort found, however, the fortune taped to my monitor @ work from last month's Schezuan Beef says, "Reflect on yourself before anyone can look down on you."
Offer no quarter, don't expect any. Just saying. Thought you might do well w/ a more objective outlook on the game instead of a personal one is all.
Frankly, the more abrasive communication really only began after the OP started whining about the first post, which by forum post standards, was pretty tame.
This sort of factioning over small potatos is partly why gamers in the main stream are construed as short-fused nerd ragers. ie) It keeps us down.
I guess what I mean is it's enough to say, "I think you're wrong about 'x', here's why," rather than get peronsally invested, and over a game issue too? Perhaps if it was one's car, s/o, job, etc, maybe, I'd buy that.
Seriously. I have hardly, if ever posted restrictions to my players. I've never made them take something they horribly disdained, and by all means have never forced a player to do/play/deal with something that iritated them on a personal level. It's called fluff people learn to use it.
Oh you don't want to be trained by elves ok hmmmmm lets say instead your trained by a group of renegade dwarves who instead of focusing their talents on the elequentness of wielding a blade instead have taught you on the finesse of utilising the axe/hammer. Tweak here, change there, viola your good to go.
No good. Ok well how about you were befriended by a dragon/insert other ancient magical creature here in the ancient art of the blade the same one he taught the elves before they took as a specialised soldier into their ranks.
Whats that, you want to use your charnel touch to heal yourself. Ok how about instead of channeling negative energy you actually are channeling good energy/life essence in its purest form. Thats right when you use Charnel touch your infecting your target with life. fortunatly for you it heals you because your spirit is attuned to the same magic.
Whats that you wanna be a one eyed magical wielding badger who flies and father was a dragon and mother was a demon. Ok you speak comman, abbyssal, draconic and cannot wield weapons however you do gain a bite and claw attack that are utilised as magical weapons.
god i hate seeing these posts seriously. Like every...sorry the majority of DM's seem to have this idea that its them against the player. Oh my player doesnt like his stats he needs to reroll - heres an idea move stats.
Oh my player didn't like the race he chose at time of creation - heres an idea kill him off then reincarnate him as what he wanted.
Oh my player wants to pickpocket the party and its not fair - you guys ever hear of perception/search checks? yeah make it an opposed roll and catch his hand in the pocket.
Im sorry. but as a DM i feel my two jobs are quite simple.
1: Make sure the players are having fun.
2: Create a fantastic and specialised world filled with memorable inhabitants and events.
I'm not sure why everyone suddenly got all negative about it. or who got what up their tight lil rear but seriously. If you continue to patronise your players, continue to put them down and railroad them, and straight continue to act like a first grader ultimatley you arnt going to have to worry about kicking players out of the game cause youll find less and less want to show up.
Stop making it a Mines bigger than yours match and play the game.
It was waiting until 4 sessions later to ***** about it and then wanting to do things retroactively.
I don't impose heavy restrictions on character CREATION. however, unless there's a death or an RP of a character leaving the party, that's when the creation stops and you're stuck with the hand you drew.
Considering I sometimes allow 6d6, take top 3, reroll one "1" if you roll a 1 as my character creation system, no character will be walking away from huge stats only to gain <=10 on a stat.
But i've recently had 3 players change their race once after going from level 1-4. Had another change his class 2. And even had to turn around and reincarnate another.
Did i cry or complain or slap at my players? noooo. I saw it as a point of creativity to be exploited and played with. Did i make things fun and interesting with consequences. YES.