What I want to know is, is he in the right, at the moment I am quite angry about the entire incident and am considering leaving the group but it might be me that is out of line, and if I am being unreasonable I don't want to leave the only dungeons and dragons group I have been able to find.
The Backstory: Very soon my group will be moving to Eberron, we haven't been together very long and decided to reroll all or characters for this new setting.My Dm (and I think this is fair enough) does not allow dragon content (such as the battle harness or the disembodied hand familiar) because he believes dragon content is overpowered.
Originally I believed that to fully use the class I chose (artificer) I would have to switch between a long range weapon, and short range weapon, and an implement. I now know better. At the time my Solution to this was to use the new weapon, a drow long knife, found in the epg, and have an implement in my off hand.
My DM, in real life stated his concerns that by taking a weapon proficiency feat just to make my class 'work' would adversely affect my ability to function as that class. That is, if I took that feat I wouldn't be as a good an artificer.
I responded on our group page with the following light-hearted post
My Post One
20 Reasons that I, Glint Whiteficer, should be allowed to use a Drow long knife.
1. I really, really want to. Not the best reason I know, but it comes from the heart.
2. Examining the artificer powers from level one to thirty once again I can see that it is possible to create an artificer that does notneed to use a long range, close range, and implement at once, however I feel that in both the long term and short term the artificers utility is increased in a manner that outweighs the loss of a single feat
3. Unlike many classes, the Artificer can quite easily afford the feat loss, and considering the additionf Focused Expertise (Drow Long Knife) it is debatable whether or not a feat is actually spent, as other artificers would have to get weapon expertise on both their ranged and melee weapons (that is they would spend two for the same thing I am spending 2).
4. On damage and proficiency: While Artificers are leaders, many of their powers have a striker feel to them, as do some of their paragon paths. Many of these powers use X[W] thus having a d6 weapon would be helpful for our party overall. +3 proficiency is also good, as most of the leader powers need to hit to confer their benifit
5. The Drow long knife can get magic weapon types that work well with some other feats Artificers have access to, and in general they are of a greater benefit to the party and to myself.
6. In my mind a Changling Artificer using either a rod as a walking stick or a staff as a walking aid wielding a weapon which looks like a drow long knife(as it is described in the eberron book) in his other hand is a lot cooler than an artificer doing the same but with a dagger.
7. I really, really want to
8. I want to work the knife into my back story, and have it so my artificer uses it from level 1-30, using the Transfer Enchantment ritual when higher level weapons are gained. It is odd enough for an artificer to use a drow long knife thematically that it would justify this, one using a dagger would not.
9. Please?
10. Just because it is a DROW Long Knife it does not mean that it will be used to self harm
11.Nor will it cause Linkin Park to play
12. Okay maybe once
13. But not after that, unless there is a perfect storm of events that call for it so strongly that it would be impossible not to do it
14. Drow Long Knives are not the darkness, nor can they be depressed
15. It is wrong to tell the warforged that they are and can. So I will not
16. If you allow me to use a drow long knife I will NEVER refer to myself as a sky pirate, unless we actually do become sky pirates. Even then not excessivly
18. Even if there is some effectiveness lost (which I firmly dispute) it would be more than balanced by the fact that we have a second defender that can off heal.
19. What happened to 17
17. oh here it is
20. I really, really want to
If, these brilliant points do not convince, and I am forced into using a dagger, I will accept my fate and cease complaining here. (I don't not promise not to make a post on the forums complaining however, and I might bluff and tell the warforged misleading things about what is accepted as normal in polite society)
20 Reasons that I, Glint Whiteficer, should be allowed to use a Drow long knife.
1. I really, really want to. Not the best reason I know, but it comes from the heart.
2. Examining the artificer powers from level one to thirty once again I can see that it is possible to create an artificer that does notneed to use a long range, close range, and implement at once, however I feel that in both the long term and short term the artificers utility is increased in a manner that outweighs the loss of a single feat
3. Unlike many classes, the Artificer can quite easily afford the feat loss, and considering the additionf Focused Expertise (Drow Long Knife) it is debatable whether or not a feat is actually spent, as other artificers would have to get weapon expertise on both their ranged and melee weapons (that is they would spend two for the same thing I am spending 2).
4. On damage and proficiency: While Artificers are leaders, many of their powers have a striker feel to them, as do some of their paragon paths. Many of these powers use X[W] thus having a d6 weapon would be helpful for our party overall. +3 proficiency is also good, as most of the leader powers need to hit to confer their benifit
5. The Drow long knife can get magic weapon types that work well with some other feats Artificers have access to, and in general they are of a greater benefit to the party and to myself.
6. In my mind a Changling Artificer using either a rod as a walking stick or a staff as a walking aid wielding a weapon which looks like a drow long knife(as it is described in the eberron book) in his other hand is a lot cooler than an artificer doing the same but with a dagger.
7. I really, really want to
8. I want to work the knife into my back story, and have it so my artificer uses it from level 1-30, using the Transfer Enchantment ritual when higher level weapons are gained. It is odd enough for an artificer to use a drow long knife thematically that it would justify this, one using a dagger would not.
9. Please?
10. Just because it is a DROW Long Knife it does not mean that it will be used to self harm
11.Nor will it cause Linkin Park to play
12. Okay maybe once
13. But not after that, unless there is a perfect storm of events that call for it so strongly that it would be impossible not to do it
14. Drow Long Knives are not the darkness, nor can they be depressed
15. It is wrong to tell the warforged that they are and can. So I will not
16. If you allow me to use a drow long knife I will NEVER refer to myself as a sky pirate, unless we actually do become sky pirates. Even then not excessivly
18. Even if there is some effectiveness lost (which I firmly dispute) it would be more than balanced by the fact that we have a second defender that can off heal.
19. What happened to 17
17. oh here it is
20. I really, really want to
If, these brilliant points do not convince, and I am forced into using a dagger, I will accept my fate and cease complaining here. (I don't not promise not to make a post on the forums complaining however, and I might bluff and tell the warforged misleading things about what is accepted as normal in polite society)
I am alright with taking the nerf bat to certain things (Hello Punisher of the gods), but unless it creates an infinite (or effectively infinite) damage loop/chain, or causes the Dragon to remain asleep despite rolling a natural 20 on a saving throw, then what's the point?
You've given a perfectly reasonable explanation of why you use a Drow Long Knife, better than most characters would, and your DM still isn't budging. I'd find another group. If he's so controlling over something so minuscule, then I can just see him micro-managing throughout the campaign, which will likely clash with your enjoyment of the game (it's obvious that you don't like to be micro-managed, which is cool).
Chalk it up to a bad fit, and try to find another group. You might make a good DM yourself for a group seeing as you put so much thought into this one character. Why not give it a try if you can't find another DM?
My only thought is that he expects you to take 'implement prof: light blade' and just use one weapon/implement and thus be 'overpowered' but that's not mentioned at all.
Is he really saying that he wants to control your character concept/appearance? All over a heavy-thrown shortsword?
It's your character, you can make choices like this.
Spending 1 feat will not "adversely affect my ability to function as that class"
Ask your GM to clarify:
Do you oppose the weapon on thematic grounds?
Do you oppose the weapon on thematic grounds for an artificer?
Do you oppose the weapon on balance grounds?
Remember that the weapon can be re-fluffed as an extra-large dagger or a shortsword balanced for throwing. While originally made/used by the Drow, other races will make their own in their own style, just not often.
If he usually this controlling? How old is he and your group?
Your DM is looking at your character and asking "Why". What he should be asking is "Why not". Instead of saying "that doesn't fit with the campain" he (with you) should be finding a way for it to fit.
Does it have to be called a drow knife? Are they seriously the only one's who can make a blade of that desciption? Can an elf or even human make a similar blade and call it something else?
It sounds like your DM is very closed minded and may not be interested in this method, but explain your desire and simply say "what will it take to make this work?"
Hope this helps
I understand what he is trying to do but he is very bad at it. I can usually "help" the players with their decisions without them freaking out. He just went the total dumbass way.
If he usually this controlling? How old is he and your group?
I'm not sure his exact age to be honest, our group ranges from 20-26. Most of us are uni students. I am 21, he would probably be 25-28 but as I said, I'm not actually sure.
I find it a bit hard to judge how 'controlling' he is. I haven't really played that much dnd before this group. There certainly hasn't been much if anything before this that has annoyed me to this degree. He convinced me to take drow over Eladrin for my sorcerer instead of an Eladrin, largely because of the racial mods. But I had no particular attachment to the Eladrin, and he convinced me, rather than just saying 'no'. In the end I enjoyed playing the drow.
My original story for that character was also challanged, and he offered an alternative that suited us both. But he explained the reasons (the character I wanted was evil, but under a vow that for reasons explained in the back story i created that he would not break. ) The told me 'no' but explained to me why it was a bad idea, the things that could go wrong, and I agreed that his creating of a sorcerer that had made a deal with the primordial for power would work better for the party and myself.
As the current campaign has progressed (It really hasn't progressed really far, we only just hit level 3 and are still in our first 'dungeon') There have been times when he has shot down ideas that I thought were legitimate, but have been other times gone along with what the party decides. I can't think of any specific example where he simply said no.
There have been other times that he has questioned feats/classes etc. (for example telling the person creating a warden for our eberron campaign who wanted to go with a thunder theme heading towards storm warden that he shouldn't take the mark of storm and should go with the mark of warding. I don't know enough about wardens to comment on that, but I think it was just as much a character story thing as much as the mechanical bonus of that mark. The person making the warden dropped the feat, so I don't know how far the DM would have gone with that.
Frankly, as much as it angers me, I am also baffled. The DM is a top bloke, but I just seem to have hit a wall in this instance, and I am afraid that as our adventure progresses I'll hit more.
Ask your GM to clarify:
Do you oppose the weapon on thematic grounds?
Do you oppose the weapon on thematic grounds for an artificer?
Do you oppose the weapon on balance grounds?
This seems like a good idea, I'll try this before making any decisions
I didn't read all of the wall of text you presented (sorry)
Haha, yeah, when I finished typing the last one I was surprised how much I'd churned out. It may be possible that the DM saw "Wall of Text" Read the first few lines, and reacted, but even that would trouble me, because I spent a lot of time trying to answer the concerns he raised.
Not every choice has to be permanent. It's OK to try something and find out that it isn't the best choice then change it later.
Beyond that, red_tanker has some good advice.
I can see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to use a Drow Long Knife. Your character could have been sent on a mission to Xen'drik to reclaim some ancient giant artifact and "acquired" the knife there and then learnt how to use it.
Given the list of powers available to a non-multiclass Artificer then the Drow Long Knife is very useful.
Focused Expertise (if allowed) will benefit all your powers with one item, Arcane Implement Proficiency means you can pick up heavy blade and thus don't even need a wand, and if you ever feel you need a bit more range then Far Throw will add 2 more squares, more than sufficient based on the powers available.
As you have said, you could use a hand crossbow and a spiked gauntlet as well as having a wand. This is much more feat intensive, and probably requires quick draw to manage.
You also do not get a +3 weapon, besides the dagger, without spending a feat on weapon proficiency.
Again as you have said, you don't need a drow long knife for your character, however it is a less feat intensive option (min 2 feats compared to 4) which means you have more feats to boost your leadership abilities.
If your DM can't see the game and story reasons behind this then you would be better off with a different DM.
The job of the DM is to be a facilitator and you can't do that by saying no to everything. I would like to hear your DMs reasoning behind their decision, but it seems like they saw the word Drow in the weapon name and freaked.
Ask them if they would allow you to use one if your character was a Drow Artificer instead and see what they say (apart from the suboptimal race/class combo).
Just kidding! :D (I seriously don't believe in that, btw. I've only had one DM build one character for me, and the character's advancement was a cooperative effort.)
Based on your DM's other actions regarding character builds, I think you should at least talk to the other players and the DM about the way he acts. For example, the Mark of Storm sounds more reasonable than the Mark of Warding for the storm warden (hit with a t/l pwr, slide the target away from the squishies). And if all else fails, leave the group.
If you really want to use it why not play a drow character or say that the character family was murdered by a drow but you were saved by a strange women but passed out from pain. When you come to there was a dead drow next to you and more footprints leading away from the dead family. On the body you found the strange looking knive and decided then that you would learn how to use it and find the rest of the killers to find rest for your family. So you always use it to remind your self of what happened. Also if you are going to use that weapon you really should multi class so you can pick up some powers for it.
I have to argee with the DM on the fact of story reason for not allowing just because I have DMed in eberron 3.5 and love drow in 3.5 and 4e. There is no way they would teach a non drow how to use such a weapon. So I would make the player come up with a reasonable way for you to have learned how to use it.
The drow are not a monolithic culture by ANY means. There very well could be even just one or two drow living in, say, Stormreach willing to teach people.
And even if there aren't, IT'S JUST A SWORD THAT'S BALANCED FOR THROWING. While it might be a bit difficult to pick up how to use it properly, it is by no means impossible without the benefit of a drowish Mr. Miyagi.
If you really want to use it why not play a drow character...
Why exactly does he need any story justification beyond, say, "I bought this nifty new sword from a merchant fresh back from Xen'drik and decided to spend some time figuring out how to use it?"
Also if you are going to use that weapon you really should multi class so you can pick up some powers for it.
Why? Do artificers suddenly lose access to their melee and ranged weapon powers when using a weapon not on their starting proficiency list?
Other than that I think it is wrong to try and force people to make their characters a certain way mechanic wise. I might give them suggestions or point out stuff I think they may like or not like. But in the end it is their decision.
There is one girl in my group who is not really big on character creation so I do most of the picking for her but I do ask her what she would like to with her character and try to make it to fit her desires.
Even with me making her character for her it is up to her if she wants to use what I picked for her.
Though I can't see his reasoning I do know I have played a game under a fairly strict and controlling DM. It turns out that it was one of the better games I have played. Just because the DM has A$$holed (Ahh.... the Aussie in me escapes) this idea in what seems to be an unreasonable manner doesn't mean you won't enjoy his game. If you can... get over it and go with something else. I am not saying it is fair. It just might be the best way to move forward.
Copy some of these posts to the site that you use to communicate if you think it will help, or just leave the group. It is unfortunate, but if it isn't fun then there is no reason to do it.
I have DMed a long while and I have never told anyone to "roll a different character" with as little basis as your DM has. It makes so little sense that he is arguing with you on this. I think that your character having this kind of weapon training would open up some interesting in-game dialogue opportunities and even possible encounters.
It seems like your DM is also a railroader, but that is just what I pick up from his controlling attitude. I could be wrong. My condolences for your situation. That really sucks man. GL.
Based on the opening post, I get the impression that you're kind of obsessive about this character. If I were your DM, I might feel inclined to make you play something else just because your fixation on crafting an intricate character is getting annoying.
If that were the case, it still wouldn't mean that your DM is in the right, but it's something you might want to think about. Maybe BOTH of you are going overkill.
Powerwise, it's slighly more accurate and slightly shorter range than the Javelin, with that added bonus of being featable into an implement, this makes it worth the feat you spend to get it and you need less weapons parceled out to you- which is a good thing.
I know exactly what you are going through, my DM just decided the Cleric paragon path Angelic Avenger (which grants a free prociency in a "heavy blade") wouldn't let me take a Sharash or a Zuulat (Eberron superior "glaives") because the PICTURE of the path was wielding a Bastard sword. Nevermind when that path was written that was the only superior heavy blade in existance. I'm stuck since I don't want to quit a campaign I've played for 10 levels, but since you are starting out I'd call out your DM and find a new campaign.
The drow are not a monolithic culture by ANY means. There very well could be even just one or two drow living in, say, Stormreach willing to teach people.
And even if there aren't, IT'S JUST A SWORD THAT'S BALANCED FOR THROWING. While it might be a bit difficult to pick up how to use it properly, it is by no means impossible without the benefit of a drowish Mr. Miyagi.
Why exactly does he need any story justification beyond, say, "I bought this nifty new sword from a merchant fresh back from Xen'drik and decided to spend some time figuring out how to use it?"
Why? Do artificers suddenly lose access to their melee and ranged weapon powers when using a weapon not on their starting proficiency list?
Your assume in a average game. The DM has said that in his games that wouldn't happen and has asked for the OP Justification as to how. This is a great RP opportunity. The OP can can up with something that the DM thinks would work in his story/game plots for why the character would have it then it will make the player feel more in-tuned to the game. Make the players feel like they are part of the game and their opinions matter. I like how Half my post gets skipped. I am a storytelling DM at heart and like for things to fit into the story. I get with my players about their backgrounds and then build the story around it. It is not my job to come up with the story of why my players PC has and uses powers or weapons or the like. Unless they ask for help in which case I make some suggestion and let them finish the rest. I would never tell my players they couldn't play a class unless there were power/unbalancing concerns. (Most definitely not for some Opted view of how feats should be spent.) It is his job to balance encounters to his group. Not the groups job to balance the characters to his encounters.
What type of group are you in?
As a DM I would have allowed you to use the long knife from the get go.
As a person who happens to be the DM, unless you were a friend that i know well outside the game or it would otherwise impact my life outside the game my response to your last posting would have been suggesting you find a different group/DM rather than picking a new race or class.
If you are up at 6am because you can't sleep due to your excessive anger over a DM's game decision I wouldn't need your drama in my life.
If you are up at 6am because you can't sleep due to your excessive anger over a DM's game decision I wouldn't need your drama in my life.
I do agree with this part. It isn't worth it to get that worked up about.
One of the other people in my group posted the following on the groups discussion:
Party member's post
"If you can justify a drow long knife as a weapon and the feats
required in a way that it is not essential for the character to work
at a basic level and can be backed up by character background I will
consider it. "
You said that a few posts up, he just did exactly that. He has made
quite a valid argument and all you can tell him to do is reroll? Is it
that hard to believe that a Level 3 CHANGELING who served in the war
cant get his hands on a freaking Knife? Who's to say exotic arms
dealers dont exist? Merchants who cater to adventurers? Imitation Drow
Long Knives?
Really all this stink over something as stupid as a weapon.
"If you can justify a drow long knife as a weapon and the feats
required in a way that it is not essential for the character to work
at a basic level and can be backed up by character background I will
consider it. "
You said that a few posts up, he just did exactly that. He has made
quite a valid argument and all you can tell him to do is reroll? Is it
that hard to believe that a Level 3 CHANGELING who served in the war
cant get his hands on a freaking Knife? Who's to say exotic arms
dealers dont exist? Merchants who cater to adventurers? Imitation Drow
Long Knives?
Really all this stink over something as stupid as a weapon.
The long knife isn't even going to make you more powerful; it's just more convenient because you don't have to swap around weapons and implements if you pick a mix of weapon and implement powers.
You probably did overreact, but I do think you're justified in protesting, and in leaving. DMs are not always right, but what the DM says, goes. And if he says enough stupid crap, his players go. And if a DM is telling you how to play your character (unless, perhaps, you're a total n00b going 'my wizard hits him with his staff'), that strikes me as a sure sign to get while the gettin's good.
Your DM seems to have a very narrow view of classes and what they do. If an artificer didn't potentially have some tendency to work with weapons, they wouldn't have weapon powers. This bizarre view that an arcane class can't be interested in weapons or be a melee combatant is positively baffling to me. Obviously, your artificer DID tinker with weapons.
The long knife isn't even going to make you more powerful; it's just more convenient because you don't have to swap around weapons and implements if you pick a mix of weapon and implement powers.
You probably did overreact, but I do think you're justified in protesting, and in leaving. DMs are not always right, but what the DM says, goes. And if he says enough stupid crap, his players go. And if a DM is telling you how to play your character (unless, perhaps, you're a total n00b going 'my wizard hits him with his staff'), that strikes me as a sure sign to get while the gettin's good.
I have not, at this point left the group. I have made what may be my final post on the groups page depending on my DM's decision. If he starts railroading us/controlling us excessively in game then I probably will leave, but to leave at this point, over this, would be... not right.
I posted this:
I posted this in IRC, but in case you were no looking here it is:
Hey miles, I will go with a bard if you want.
I didn't consider things from your perspective in this, and as I read over my posts can see I overreacted quite a bit.
If I have made you not want to dm this group then I apologies. If you feel that I am in general and in this specific situation being detrimental to either you or others in the groups enjoyment of DnD and that I will cause these problems in the future as well, then I can leave the group. Not because I am angry, but because I don't want to be the sort of person that would kill these sessions. Alternatively, I could be put on a sort of probation, where you could ask me to leave at any time and I will, without causing any drama over it. It would be unfair of both of us to punish the rest of the group over something they had no control over.
Again, I apologize for the tone of my previous posts.
The point of the game is ultimately to have fun.
The DM's job therefore is to facilitate everyone deriving the greatest amount of enjoyment possible out of the game. Everything else is secondary, if the DM and players are not enjoying themselves then the point of the game is lost.
Your character concept part of which involves using a Drow Long Knife is/was clearly going to increase your enjoyment of the game without negatively impacting the enjoyment of the other players or disrupting the mechanics of the game itself.
Therefore in my opinion your DM violated an his social contract with the group my making a decision which lowered the amount of overall fun in the game.
Speaking as someone currently playing a Swordmage I can say his logic that an Arcane class shouldn't be taking a superior weapon feat just reinforces that as a DM he is more interested in furthering his vision of the campaign world than in facilitating the entertainment of the rest of the people at the table.
However as I was getting at before, you chose to escalate the situation through your language and actions. If you are truly so worked up over the situation that you are losing sleep maybe you should consider taking a break from the group if not outright quitting.
On the other hand you seem to understand this having had a chance to review what your wrote yourself. If your DM wants to continue being a Jackhole about controlling the details of your character and you cant find another group then the only choice you are left with that doesn't interfere with everyone's enjoyment is changing your character to fit what the DM wants.
You could also consider stashing the character idea away until you can find a DM who will be more flexible with you and play another race/class in the meantime.
Or, for another possible solution:
Your DM said he isn't sure he even wants to run the campaign now, consider volunteering to DM yourself for awhile, show him how yo would do it and how saying YES to player requests does more to promote fun than it does to detract from some tunnel visioned version of what a class is supposed to be.
Maybe after being on the other side of the table for a few levels of gameplay he will come around and see the value of flexibility.
Which one of you is "right" is pretty much irrelevant, in this case. Renaming or reflavoring a weapon out of one of the books is a trivial thing, this is more of a "These folks aren't quite sure how to gel as a group yet" deal. The DM publically pondering not even wanting to run the game anymore makes more sense in that context; it's not about the little rules issue, it's a communication issue.
I'd also recommend, very highly, that you guys, like, not discuss this any more over forums, and wait until you're all face to face and can have a proper group conversation about it. Seriously. It makes a real difference. (For instance, face to face instead of a cutesy "20 reasons I should be allowed to do this", you could've been like "So I like this weapon, we can reflavor it or whatever, whaddya say"
You seem to be a little too worked up as well, but the DM should not tell you how to make your character beyond limiting options that are "overpowered."
Once he starts writing your background and making your characters... it seems he would be an extremely controlling person.
I also don't think you should have acted so deferential at the end unless you truly have no reason to believe a single D&D group exists other than his. Try online meetups, talk to your school's advisors in charge of clubs, find gaming stores or whatever. There are other games.
Not somebody who should be DMing. If you can get enough people on your side, "dethrone" him and have someone with some imagination and civility take over.
He misses the point entirely in that making a character is an exercise in optimizing "numbers" (whether combatwise or RP feats like linguist-you're still maximizing something's potential) and then justifying it with roleplay and backround.
His "justification" comes across to me as "casters can't do that because that's not how it was before or in X" and "That's not how it would happen in real-life". D&D isn't real-life, it's crazy, fantastical fun. If you're arcane dude wants to throw a sword at someguy--awesome: roll to hit spell-boy.
You got a bit too worked up at first and now you seem to be caving in a bit too readily, once you cave-in once it's all too easy to keep doing it.
This is not a good DM. The fact that he was arguing with you about YOUR feat choices and about YOUR character and having a weapon that would create new opportunities and define you as a character is... stupid.
Good Luck. I would leave the group as fast as the Quickling runs.
Why shouldn't Arcane characters be allowed to use Superior weapons, if they have powers they can use said weapon with then there is always a story reason why your character has that weapon.
I think it is also a little narrow-minded to assume that just because the Last War was fought on Khorvaire soil doesn't mean that each nation wasn't looking for ancient artifacts that could assist in their war efforts. With Xen'drik the home to a fallen Giant empire, it stands to reason that teams would have been sent there.
Personally, as a DM, if a player can come up with compelling background reasons for their choices then they should be allowed. More fun is generally had by all by saying yes instead of no.
Leave the group, find a new one, or cause a Mutiny and get a new DM.
Are you wanting to be that class or are you wanting a type of character? Maybe we can figure a way for you to get the weapon and be arcane type of chacarter? What do you think all think? I'd assume a multi class would be in order? I will have to look at the class up close. I have seen it yet.
There shouldn't have to be an issue. The idea that an arcane character can't be interested in weapons is ludicrous, especially an artificer, whose job description includes making magic items, like, say, magic weapons. Artificers have weapon powers, which means at least some of them do use weapons.
The DM doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Though you're taking the game way to seriously if you're letting it interrupt your sleep patterns, or anything IRL.
He's just a little man (not necessarily in stature, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was a Napoleon), who has to get his way because that's just the way it is. I wouldn't enjoy a game with him, and I doubt you would either. Drop him and find another DM... or DM yourself. Like I said before, you might do very well at it, even if it's not your ideal situation at the moment.
The point is that your DM is making up stupid house-rules. Nowhere under weapon proficiency feats does it say "You have to be a Martial class to take this feat" it's not in the prereq's, this guy is a douche.
Though you're taking the game way to seriously if you're letting it interrupt your sleep patterns, or anything IRL.
He is basing his concerns opted views. Not RAW. He is saying that the OPted cost of taking the feat is to much for that class because it needs all the feats to be effective in battle. BS BS!
Here is the bottom line as I see it:
The point of the game is ultimately to have fun.
The DM's job therefore is to facilitate everyone deriving the greatest amount of enjoyment possible out of the game. Everything else is secondary, if the DM and players are not enjoying themselves then the point of the game is lost.
Your character concept part of which involves using a Drow Long Knife is/was clearly going to increase your enjoyment of the game without negatively impacting the enjoyment of the other players or disrupting the mechanics of the game itself.
Therefore in my opinion your DM violated an his social contract with the group my making a decision which lowered the amount of overall fun in the game.
I disagree. You are forgetting that the DM is a player also. The player also violated the social contract by lowering the amount of overall fun in the game as well when the DM is included.
It sounds to me like the DM has a very specific view of Eberron and wants to maintain it. That he is doing this before the game starts indicates to me that his not not a control freak, just a DM who wants to run a specific type of game. Once play begins, the game will probably flow like any other game.
doppelganger Quote:Originally Posted by myltonwaddams
Here is the bottom line as I see it:
The point of the game is ultimately to have fun.
The DM's job therefore is to facilitate everyone deriving the greatest amount of enjoyment possible out of the game. Everything else is secondary, if the DM and players are not enjoying themselves then the point of the game is lost.
Your character concept part of which involves using a Drow Long Knife is/was clearly going to increase your enjoyment of the game without negatively impacting the enjoyment of the other players or disrupting the mechanics of the game itself.
Therefore in my opinion your DM violated an his social contract with the group my making a decision which lowered the amount of overall fun in the game.
I disagree. You are forgetting that the DM is a player also. The player also violated the social contract by lowering the amount of overall fun in the game as well when the DM is included.
It sounds to me like the DM has a very specific view of Eberron and wants to maintain it. That he is doing this before the game starts indicates to me that his not not a control freak, just a DM who wants to run a specific type of game. Once play begins, the game will probably flow like any other game.
I'm sorry, but i have to disagree with the disagree. The gm is included in the statement "The DM's job therefore is to facilitate everyone deriving the greatest amount of enjoyment possible out of the game". Everyone included the gm. The gm ruined his own fun by causing an argument. The gm could have said "I'm sry but that is against my view of drow knives and ebboron and im not going to allow it". This statement is not arguementitive, it is a statement of fact. The gm doesn't have to believe in it. Period.
By trying to disallow it from a mechanical stand point, the gm is inviting the player to prove him wrong. By trying to disallow it from a background standpoint, he gave the illusion he was ok with; just explain it. When he was proven wrong he overreacted by trying to disallow the entire character. Very immature. This is either a very poor or inexperienced gm.
Now the player could have been a little more diplomatic. However i feel he was mislead by some of the gm's statements.
To OP'r: If your gm is new, play your character but explain to him how you feel controlled and railroaded. How asking for a background or mechanics leads you to think if you can justify it, you can have it. If he's an experienced gm, your boned. He wont change. Find a new group. I usually put the age around 25-30. Somewhere in there ppl start to be a little more set in their ways.
good luck.
I'm sorry, but i have to disagree with the disagree. The gm is included in the statement "The DM's job therefore is to facilitate everyone deriving the greatest amount of enjoyment possible out of the game". Everyone included the gm. The gm ruined his own fun by causing an argument. The gm could have said "I'm sry but that is against my view of drow knives and ebboron and im not going to allow it". This statement is not arguementitive, it is a statement of fact. The gm doesn't have to believe in it. Period.
I think you are missing my point. The game has not yet begun. The DM hasn't cut the fun level yet, because the game has not begun, although he has set limits to be sure that he will have fun when the game does start.
I think you are missing my point. The game has not yet begun. The DM hasn't cut the fun level yet, because the game has not begun, although he has set limits to be sure that he will have fun when the game does start.
Ok, fair enough, i still disagree. I enjoy making a character, and i believe the game starts when you start making a character, not when you start playing the character. Many people have the first session to make the character. Furthermore, his currect reactions are a direct indicater on how he will react through the entire game. It doesnt sound like the OP is having fun yet, so i'd say the gm is off to a poor start.
Reading his post about how its HIS game and he has the final say on everything... you can just tell. Does he not know that D&D is the game where the DM has control of everything BUT the players? That's the whole point.
My suggestion for the OP is to try and run your own game. It sounds like you might have at least one other player on your side. You sound far more reasonable than me (i understand why you couldnt sleep, its called righteous fury!!!). Running a game yourself will give you as much insight into his decision, be it right or wrong, that you will probably be able to get. 4th edition is very new GM friendly.
Also, to defeat him with his own logic...
He wants you to spend two or three feats, and pump up your strength and con to get full plate armor. Yeah, very ARCANE, according to his standards.
however spending a few days behind the barn throwing your rune-sword at magically animated bottles bouncing on a fence..... no can do.
i would have passed over this one as soon as he made the broad "no dragon content" generalization that all that stuff is overpowered. its made by the same people, half of it is stuff that was going to be in whatever supplement it pertains to, but was cut for space. another chunk of it is stuff that will be in a book soon.
I disagree. You are forgetting that the DM is a player also. The player also violated the social contract by lowering the amount of overall fun in the game as well when the DM is included.
It sounds to me like the DM has a very specific view of Eberron and wants to maintain it. That he is doing this before the game starts indicates to me that his not not a control freak, just a DM who wants to run a specific type of game. Once play begins, the game will probably flow like any other game.
This is the reason I backpedaled so much, I thought he was just either being a control freak or espousing a view that was flawed. His last explanation (which I must admit annoyed me somewhat because it was not even directed at me) showed it was an issue with the DM's construction of his specific world rather than with mechanics or anything and could not be said to be 'wrong'.
I wish he'd made it clear from the beginning that that is what the issue was because I would never have escalated things in the way that I so obviously did. If he railroads us constantly or is controlling in the future (pending his decision of course) then I will reverse this opinion, but I can't make that judgment from this incident.
If I have a complaint it is that he continued to lead me on and say "If you disprove x then you can do y" because I think that he never had any intention of letting me use it because it didn't fit into 'his' eberron. I'd rather him have started with " I don't believe an arcane class should/would have the time/inclination/ability to master the drow long knife because it is yadda yadda yadda" because then, although I still would have disagreed with him on a personal level, I wouldn't have argued against it because a) It isn't that important a thing, b) as Doppelganger said, the DM is also someone that should be taking enjoyment from these sessions, and it getting the drow long knife would obviously negatively affect him far more than not getting it would do so to me and C) There would be no way that I could possibly win that argument.
For those who think I am being subservient and urge me to leave, there are reasons that I do not want to beyond me now understanding the DMs viewpoint. I know everyone else that is in the dnd group, and one of the people in it is a friend of the dm. Me leaving now over this might (I'm pretty sure it would) cause drama to spill over into other arenas that have too much drama (female related) already. If I do end up leaving, either over this (because of his decision) or something else then I want it to be as amiable as possible. I'm not saying if this weren't the case I'd leave right now, I'd just be a tad more adamant about not having to change class; I don't like any of the other leader classes very much and everyone else has chosen their class with the expectation that I would be the leader.
He wants you to spend two or three feats, and pump up your strength and con to get full plate armor. Yeah, very ARCANE, according to his standards.
however spending a few days behind the barn throwing your rune-sword at magically animated bottles bouncing on a fence..... no can do.
Ah, I don't think it was a serious suggestion on his part. I think he was trying to make me wanting to use a drow long knife look ridiculous by either comparing it to an artificer in plate or saying that it would necessitate me taking plate armour. This sort of tactic annoys me and was a factor in my rage. I choose to take it as a legitimate suggestion in my response because it seemed the most effective way to combat that sort of argument.
*Edit*
i would have passed over this one as soon as he made the broad "no dragon content" generalization that all that stuff is overpowered. its made by the same people, half of it is stuff that was going to be in whatever supplement it pertains to, but was cut for space. another chunk of it is stuff that will be in a book soon.
I forgot to mention this, because I didn't see it is a real part of the issue, but he did mention that dragon content that got released in that book would be allowed because they balanced it.
It could be (as has been mentioned) that he's a novice DM. Dumping him may be good for you, but if all the players follow your lead, doesn't let him develop as a DM.
I see a major challenge in conveying to you (and other players?) about the Eberron world. It's not uncommon to have what's in the DM (or players) head not get verbalized well to the players. Your unfamiliarity with the world led you to create a background that didn't jive with his view of Eberron.
An experienced DM may have taken your background and said, "Well, the drow didn't really fight in the war, but one of your trusted advisors was a drow named Shul'akka. He trained and okayed all of the scouts that went into the field for you. He even trained you in field craft in case you needed to evade capture. The long knife was a favorite weapon of the people he trained because of it's usefullness as a tool, melee weapon, or ranged weapon. Travel light, freeze at night."
So, here's a different background for your changling artificer.
You were born in Xen'drik to a changling father and a drow mother. Your father had lived amongst the drow for decades as one of them. When you were born, your pasty grey skin immediately showed your and your father's heritage. Fleeing through the jungle, your family tried to escape their Vulkoori tribe. Eventually a decision was made, and your mother covered the flight of your father and you. Your father made it to Stormreach, and with his baby boy in tow, the 2 of you disguised as half-elves, made your way to Sharn.
Growing up your father never talked about his past, but taught you how to the importance of stealth, observation, how to fight, and when to run. He stayed by your side until you were an adult and self sufficent. His final gift to you, one of his two long knifes that he taught you to fight with. You havn't seen himself, yet you feel that he has always pined to return to the jungles of Xen'drik.
From here you can insert your own adult life. Your time in the military, etc.
Have Fun
p.s. This actually allows the DM to mess with you later. What happens when you come across another person with the same knife? Is it your father? Someone who killed your father? Did your mother escape? Has she been looking for you? Did the chiefs son who loved your mother come seeking revenge on your father and you?
It could be (as has been mentioned) that he's a novice DM. Dumping him may be good for you, but if all the players follow your lead, doesn't let him develop as a DM.
You cant grow as a DM if your answer to everything is "No, make a new character".
It's your classic New DM with a God Complex situation. They have never had so much control over anything in their entire lives, and they don't want anything to be out of their control now in their little world now.
I mean.... for crying out loud, before the game has started, he is going feat by feat over all the character to see if they fit in with his vision.
"mark of storm? your a warden, you need mark of warding...."
"drow long knife? your not a drow, and your not a martial character. start over"
if he is so *upset* about this that he doesnt want to run a game.... you guys should take him up on his offer and switch GMs. that is of course if he can hand over his godlike power to someone else.
but I must say that the DM needs to be dealt with in a direct manner. He is the one that is detracting from everyone's fun, not the player who as merely created a character that fits his vision. His decisions in character creation will not be a detriment to anyone's fun except the DM's/ Who for some reason can not get past this small detail that can easily be explained away as others such as Kawnell have, changing the fluff of the drow blade to a machete like weapon, or even a bowie knife(yep a real world example of a heavy blade that can be thrown at a short range or used in melee). I would tell him: "No, I am using the drow long knife/bowie knife, it is not game breaking and adds to the vision I have of my character. If you still have a problem with it then I will be leaving, if not then we are good." This may be a blow to his little ego but he should get over it, if he does not then you have made the right decision to leave the group (because he will not change)..finding another group is not to hard.
I'm sorry, but i have to disagree with the disagree. The gm is included in the statement "The DM's job therefore is to facilitate everyone deriving the greatest amount of enjoyment possible out of the game". Everyone included the gm. The gm ruined his own fun by causing an argument. The gm could have said "I'm sry but that is against my view of drow knives and ebboron and im not going to allow it". This statement is not arguementitive, it is a statement of fact. The gm doesn't have to believe in it. Period.
Thank you,
You are correct, I did deliberately rope the DM himself into the "everyone" statement. The DM is entitled to have fun just as much as the players, however when one takes on the role of the DM you have chosen to accept responsibility in large part for the fun of the players as a group, sometimes that means the player's as a group disagree with the DMs view. I believe that every member of the group, the DM especially, has the obligation to not interfere with the fun of the group as a whole just because they want to see things go a different direction.
Sadly I think far too many bad DMs are allowed to get away with continuing to frustrate their players because the players feel like they either will be unable to find another game, or don't feel qualified to DM themselves for whatever reason.
You don't have to min-max. What if you waste a feat on something totally for flavor? He wouldn't allow that, cos it would make you less optimal an artificer?
Walk away.
Apparently MY DM doesn't want to DM anymore. Whether that is entirely related to this argument or if there were outside factors as well I have no idea.
One of the other people in the group who dm'd a few delves when the previous DM had a bad back and missed a few session has offered to DM eberron and I'm pretty sure we are all going to take him up on it. He has said that I could have the knife, as he didn't understand what the old dm's problem was.
You were born in Xen'drik to a changling father and a drow mother. Your father had lived amongst the drow for decades as one of them. When you were born, your pasty grey skin immediately showed your and your father's heritage. Fleeing through the jungle, your family tried to escape their Vulkoori tribe. Eventually a decision was made, and your mother covered the flight of your father and you. Your father made it to Stormreach, and with his baby boy in tow, the 2 of you disguised as half-elves, made your way to Sharn.
Growing up your father never talked about his past, but taught you how to the importance of stealth, observation, how to fight, and when to run. He stayed by your side until you were an adult and self sufficent. His final gift to you, one of his two long knifes that he taught you to fight with. You havn't seen himself, yet you feel that he has always pined to return to the jungles of Xen'drik.
From here you can insert your own adult life. Your time in the military, etc.
Have Fun
p.s. This actually allows the DM to mess with you later. What happens when you come across another person with the same knife? Is it your father? Someone who killed your father? Did your mother escape? Has she been looking for you? Did the chiefs son who loved your mother come seeking revenge on your father and you?
I might go with this (with a few variations) anyway, because it is bloody brilliant for what I want my characters eventual goals to be. Cheers.
Thanks again everyone.
I had a character that mechanically used an Urgrosh but it was a scythe in game and everyone treated it as such. Next time just ask if you can just use those mechanics and call it something else (like a machete)
Does the drow long knife have to be a drow long knife?
I had a character that mechanically used an Urgrosh but it was a scythe in game and everyone treated it as such. Next time just ask if you can just use those mechanics and call it something else (like a machete)
It's a machete or a short sword. The "superior weapon" part is learning how to throw it as a deadly weapon and not just a scare tactic.
On the general topic here, my brain started to bleed a little when I read the whole "Why would an arcane character learn a superior weapon!?" thing. It's a clear and obvious indicator that this guy doesn't know half of what he thinks he knows. Of the six Arcane classes, three are weapon using classes. As a solid general statement: if your class uses weapons to attack, there's a Superior weapon worth spending a feat on.
I hope your new DM works out better for the group as a whole.
i was going to throw in cadderly from forgotten realms making a drow crossbow and using a yo-yo in the first book to knock people out, which he was a second edition cleric who could only use bludgeioning wepaons.
so there is presidence for the opening post. its almost expected that a chracter has a signature weapon not the exception. :shrug:
As an arcane leader, you really should be focusing on feats and magic items that augment your powers rather than searching for a combination that will make your character "work".
Yea, I kind of got lost here, had to read this a couple of times to make sure my glasses were clean and all that.
You DM seems to be lacking experience in character building (and in many other categories as mentioned by other posters), especially when it comes to artificers, or at least it seems like that.
I mean, artificers have horrible, wait, no, terribly horrible weapon proficiencies (and let's not talk about implements), it's simply natural that you would want to take a better weapon.
In this case, a drow long knife might even be seen as an optimal choice, something really good that will augment your powers, for example; if you go Int/Con route, you have a nice load of HPs and a decent AC (oh yea, wtf was that about plate armor? Really?) so you can be in melee, you can also move around and don't necessarily need to stay in melee, because you can use your knife as a short ranged weapon with some of your powers and if you take implement proficiency (or the swordmage multiclass feat) you can even use it as an implement, saving you the trouble of carrying around a **** load of items and probably the need for the quick draw feat.
Oh yea, I remember some article or something that says that as a DM, before answering a question, you should ask yourself "Why not?".
And really, in 4th edition, where you can reflavor your weapons and powers, I really can't see why not.
Although, for the record, artificer with a long knife is very effective.
-ducks.
Apparently MY DM doesn't want to DM anymore.
QUOTE]
Score! You won. Congrats. PowermadcontrolfreakDMs are lame. Bend or break I always say. ;)
I think the worst part is the DM's butting in so forcefully over what he considers a sub-optimal feat choice. I can see pointing out that the feat isn't really optimal for what you should be concentrating on, but it's the player's character, and he should be able to do with it what he pleases at that point.
Except it isn't a sub-optimal feat choice, it is probably one of the best feat choices an artificer can make at low levels. The feats Accurate Magic Weapon and Defensive Minions are only useful if you use the Sigil or summoning powers.
Taking a Drow long knife means you only need one weapon expertise feat, taking arcane implement proficiency (heavy blade) means that you can take focused expertise.
For a class that needs to get close and needs to hit to fulfill its role then proficiency with the Drow Long Knife is the best option because, without the extra damage mechanic of a Striker, a dagger is not a good weapon for someone who needs to get up close and personal.
Thank you everyone for your help.
Apparently MY DM doesn't want to DM anymore. Whether that is entirely related to this argument or if there were outside factors as well I have no idea.
One of the other people in the group who dm'd a few delves when the previous DM had a bad back and missed a few session has offered to DM eberron and I'm pretty sure we are all going to take him up on it. He has said that I could have the knife, as he didn't understand what the old dm's problem was.
A classic example of lazer guided karma
Your group has made a big deal out of nothing. And believe me, you're not the first group to have done this.
That campaign really got off on the wrong foot.
Don't bother playing with that group again -- imagine the next argument.
Just find a new group.
Have fun.
I told him there were no Drow in my world and he didn't make a big deal of it. Then another player joined later and also wanted to play a Drow. At that point with half my players wanting to play Drow, I just threw up my hands and wrote up a quick background for Drow in my world and let em play. Would I have been justified in digging my heels and saying no? Probably, but the tradeoff of sacrificing a bit of my vision for the gameworld for a couple of happy players was worth it.Apparently MY DM doesn't want to DM anymore. Whether that is entirely related to this argument or if there were outside factors as well I have no idea.
Congratulations! You may have successfully badgered a DM into quitting so that you could play a slightly different than baseline character.
I wish you the best of luck in your new game.
maybe he didn't really want to DM and just used this as a way to cause an issue so he can drop out guilt free.
Meh, either way the OP wins. He got what he wanted. That's all that counts, right?
Meh, either way the OP wins. He got what he wanted. That's all that counts, right?
In this case, yes.
Congratulations! You may have successfully badgered a DM into quitting so that you could play a slightly different than baseline character.
I wish you the best of luck in your new game.
If a DM quits over that small petty stuff maybe he was not ready to kepp running the game.
If a DM quits over that small petty stuff maybe he was not ready to kepp running the game.
That may be true. Also, if a player harasses a DM on a game set up call on small petty stuff, the DM probably shouldn't invest in any games with such a player.
See, it goes both ways. There are two sets of victims here.
Per the rules in the books, is an artificer not allowed to have a drow long knife? If not, then I see.
However, if they are allowed to have the knife (per the rules in the book), then you need to find a new group (especially if he tells you what class to make).
In time he might mellow out a bit or if not the other players will realize that he is a control freak and will probably start backing each other more on these kinds of issues. That or someone from the group will opt to DM and leave the current DM in the dust. If non of that happens at least you'll have time to find a new group...