| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What classes could your campaign do without?
The above mentioned thread has GM's saying they do or would ban a class due to the flavor that Paizo gave it. I am not understanding this. A class's mechanics is just a means to an end. Nobody has to be making a character that get rages/gets angry, and hits harder due to his untamed nature. He could make a living by guiding people into dangerous area, and is able to channel some mystic force when it is time to fight. The fatigue could be a result of the force causing him a lot of strain. The ninja concept class does not even need the ninja class. I would use a ranger to do it, for those that say eastern classes don't fit.
In short banning class X does not really stop the concept from being played so why ban the class?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with you. If someone wants to reflavor a class in my game I have no problem with it, as long as it makes sense for the character.
I won't really change game mechanics for that reflavor though, with alignment restrictions MAYBE being an exception.
The only reason I would consider banning something is because of the mechanics.
Or gunslingers in a world were guns don't exist is fine too, even though some might say thats flavor-banning again. But reflavoring that to xbow-slinger seems silly :)
Or gunslingers in a world were guns don't exist is fine too, even though some might say thats flavor-banning again. But reflavoring that to xbow-slinger seems silly :)
I would say this is a mechanics ban because you are not just banning a class, but rather a whole set of rules, equipment, and a class. Just my opinion of course.
As for the original question: I have asked players to not play a class or race in my game if I felt it just did not fit into the background. But to be fair, that has happened very few times in 30 years.
As GM, I try very hard to make things work so that the players can use anything from the books I own. Why buy them if you do not use them?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Same here, I abhor banning things, when I do it because of a legitimate balance/mechanical reason, not because I personally don't like a class' "flavor", after all, it's not my character.
I try to allow as much as possible as long as the game doesn't suffer.
Don't want eastern classes? Well, suddenly the samurai is just a cavalier, (maybe the players likes the mechanics best) or maybe a leader of a forgotten clan. The ninja could be anything from a rogue with bits sorcery to an over-equipped thief (maybe "ki" is actually his "utility belt" tools). Monks have dozens of archetypes to choose from.
No gunslinger? Well, give him a crossbow instead (this is might actually work better, I like gunslingers, but the firearms mechanics suck!) or a guy with some kind of magic device.
No alchemist? He can be a grenadier, or a shaman who focuses on potions rather than divine magic. Maybe he's a researcher, trying to find new weapons for his army, or a medic, looking for a cure for a certian plague, the Vivsectionist could be a rogue who is really good with potions.
No Wizard? Maybe I'll make a Sorcerer with the sage bloodline. No witch? Well, here comes my hermit druid who prepares potions and scares the villages. He even has a familiar, a very big, very strong familiar, but hey, it's there. No druid? Well a sorcerer with the sylvan bloodline might do.
No Paladins? Well, I suppose my LG Oracle of Battle will have to do, but he'll still follow his code as a Paladin, healing the wounded, fighting evil and spreading hope.
Can't play a half-orc? Well, I suppose I'll have to do with a very ugly human or vishkanya. No Gnomes? A Illusionist halfling, then.
All that banning does is making me find other means to achieve the same ends, so why not let the players choose whatever mechanics they like best? You can't change their characters if they don't want to, not really, but you can upset him. I know I'd be pretty upset if I found out whole classes (not even archetypes, classes!) were banned because he doesn't like the flavor of the class (hey, not all Clerics are the same, guys, we can have very different characters that belong to the same class!) and would reconsider my choice of playing with under that GM's rules.
I don't need "Ninja" written on my character sheet to make it a ninja. I might as well make a ranger. Or an inquisitor. or a magus. My character concept is still there, whatever is written in a piece of paper is just to identify what particular mechanics I'm using.
One guy said he bans over half the classes available! That blew my mind! One of the many things that I enjoy on RPG is the nearly unlimited freedom of choice, which includes freedom to choose what I want to play.
tl;dr: If you really, really have to remove options, do it for a legitimate reason, don't spoil someone's fun because you think his characters class/race/whatever is lame. Chances are he likes that concept! That's why he made it!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All that banning does is making me find other means to achieve the same ends, so why not let the players choose whatever mechanics they like best? You can't change their characters if they don't want to, not really, but you can upset him. I know I'd be pretty upset if I found out whole classes (not even archetypes, classes!) were banned because he doesn't like the flavor of the class (hey, not all Clerics are the same, guys, we can have very different characters that belong to the same class!) and would reconsider my choice of playing with under that GM's rules.
I don't need "Ninja" written on my character sheet to make it a ninja. I might as well make a ranger. Or an inquisitor. or a magus. My character concept is still there, whatever is written in a piece of paper is just to identify what particular mechanics I'm using.
That is what I would do as a player also. The GM has effectively made no progress in such cases.
GM:No ninjas:
ME:OK, I will just use this ranger, and give him black pajamas. :)
PS:I know they are not pajamas.
|
All that banning does is making me find other means to achieve the same ends, so why not let the players choose whatever mechanics they like best? You can't change their characters if they don't want to, not really, but you can upset him. I know I'd be pretty upset if I found out whole classes (not even archetypes, classes!) were banned because he doesn't like the flavor of the class (hey, not all Clerics are the same, guys, we can have very different characters that belong to the same class!) and would reconsider my choice of playing with under that GM's rules.
I don't need "Ninja" written on my character sheet to make it a ninja. I might as well make a ranger. Or an inquisitor. or a magus. My character concept is still there, whatever is written in a piece of paper is just to identify what particular mechanics I'm using.
That is what I would do as a player also. The GM has effectively made no progress in such cases.
GM:No ninjas:
ME:OK, I will just use this ranger, and give him black pajamas. :)PS:I know they are not pajamas.
+1
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ban stuff... sorry to disappoint!
I usually ban classes that I don't think fit, but not fit the adventure but not fit my vision of Medieval.
For example I don't allow the chop-socky classes. To me, Ninja's etc just don't fit. Same goes for guns usually but I'm currently DMing Skull and Shackles and think they fit fine for that - none of the players have opted for one however!
If a player wants to play the Ranger with pj's I don't mind.
Lemmy gives some great example of how this doesn't ruin someones fun, they can bring the character concept and adapt it into a different class!
We each have our own ideas and rules, I'm not going to so mine are right or wrong, but I will say they work for my group and that is all that matters.
We have played several campaigns where the DM turned up with characters, so perhaps that colours my answer somewhat. We've also played in worlds with no arcane magic, all assassin parties, all one race, etcetera...
I dont really disagree with the OP in that I think reskinning provides an extra dimension of creativity, so in a 'vanilla' game I wouldnt place much restriction (beyond those imposed by the level of my rules knowledge). Nonetheless, we've often found quite narrow restrictions can create interesting stories - I have no problem with a DM banning combat-heavy classes (or insisting everyone has some magical ability) if that's the kind of story they have planned.
Golarion is not medieval Europe. Do you ban all magic as well?
Would the Ninja class (not the concept) fit your world if it wasn't called Ninja, but something less "asian"?
What classes could your campaign do without?
The above mentioned thread has GM's saying they do or would ban a class due to the flavor that Paizo gave it. I am not understanding this. A class's mechanics is just a means to an end. Nobody has to be making a character that get rages/gets angry, and hits harder due to his untamed nature. He could make a living by guiding people into dangerous area, and is able to channel some mystic force when it is time to fight. The fatigue could be a result of the force causing him a lot of strain. The ninja concept class does not even need the ninja class. I would use a ranger to do it, for those that say eastern classes don't fit.
In short banning class X does not really stop the concept from being played so why ban the class?
I ban the alchemist, inquisitor and summoner because they get too much, don't balance for my game and I don't like them as a result, and some of their abilities.
I don't ban so much for flavour, but more due to mechanics and cheese. Cheesmanics.
I agree banning dosn't stop the concept being played. If you want to be an alchemist, be a wizard interested in alchemy and potions (and not with instantly made bombs that cost nothing to make and cannot be taken off you when you are defeated). If you want to play an inquisitor, an actual inquisitor as in real world history, that can be done many ways, without a bab granting special ability. IF you want to play a summoner, play a balanced conjurer without being op and always protected by an eidolon. We somewhat agree it seems!
I ban stuff... sorry to disappoint!
I usually ban classes that I don't think fit, but not fit the adventure but not fit my vision of Medieval.
For example I don't allow the chop-socky classes. To me, Ninja's etc just don't fit. Same goes for guns usually but I'm currently DMing Skull and Shackles and think they fit fine for that - none of the players have opted for one however!
If a player wants to play the Ranger with pj's I don't mind.
Lemmy gives some great example of how this doesn't ruin someones fun, they can bring the character concept and adapt it into a different class!
We each have our own ideas and rules, I'm not going to so mine are right or wrong, but I will say they work for my group and that is all that matters.
You did not say why though. Is it just because Paizo said it was a ninja? What is the difference between me playing a ninja, and playing a another class as a ninja if the in-game affect is the same? Lemmy's idea details why I don't see the point of banning the mechanics if the person is going to play a ninja anyway.
In short I am trying to understand the thought process.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What classes could your campaign do without?
The above mentioned thread has GM's saying they do or would ban a class due to the flavor that Paizo gave it. I am not understanding this. A class's mechanics is just a means to an end. Nobody has to be making a character that get rages/gets angry, and hits harder due to his untamed nature. He could make a living by guiding people into dangerous area, and is able to channel some mystic force when it is time to fight. The fatigue could be a result of the force causing him a lot of strain. The ninja concept class does not even need the ninja class. I would use a ranger to do it, for those that say eastern classes don't fit.
In short banning class X does not really stop the concept from being played so why ban the class?
I ban the alchemist, inquisitor and summoner because they get too much, don't balance for my game and I don't like them as a result, and some of their abilities.
I don't ban so much for flavour, but more due to mechanics and cheese. Cheesmanics.
I agree banning dosn't stop the concept being played. If you want to be an alchemist, be a wizard interested in alchemy and potions (and not with instantly made bombs that cost nothing to make and cannot be taken off you when you are defeated). If you want to play an inquisitor, an actual inquisitor as in real world history, that can be done many ways, without a bab granting special ability. IF you want to play a summoner, play a balanced conjurer without being op and always protected by an eidolon. We somewhat agree it seems!
I ban Experts, Commoners, Adepts, Aristocrats, Warriors and Monks. The amount of wrought in these classes makes me lose sleep at night, pray heavens forbid were they played at my table.
Once again, so glad to be in concert of thinking with a fellow refined intellectual. Truly, it's a glorious day for The Thought!
I'm not a fan of gish core classes. If someone wants to play a casty fighter (or a fighty spellcaster), instead of Magus, play an Eldritch Knight. Same goes with Inquisitors. I don't like classes that are stepping on toes of other similar classes. If a party has both an inquisitor and a ranger, both of them have track, are specialized monster hunters, etc. So, Inquisitors and Maguses are out. And Paladins, too. But, since Paladins have been part of the game for a long time, I'd be willing to allow them if games suitable for them (like the Worldwound AP), if they take an archetype that nerfs Smite.
Next are the infamous Asian classes and the gunslinger, because I like my Golarion without them. I'm fine and dandy with those classes in Tian-Xia and Alkenstar, but they don't fit well with my vision of Inner Sea.
I don't like the mechanics of the Summoner and generally don't have good experience with playtesting new base classes (except for Oracle), so I'd rather not see one in my games.
That leaves almost all core classes + Alchemist and Oracle. I like the Alchemist because most of his abilities can't be replicated with other classes and I think that Oracle Reveleations are what Cleric Domains should have been.
Selection for PCs isn't that narrow. That's 12 classes with god only knows how many archetypes and prestige classes available to them.
In the past I have told players that some classes would not be advisable due to the nature of what exists in the world (no guns, no eastern weapons) I had one particular player that would *not* play anything other than a gunslinger. When faced with this lack of weapons his response... confused me.
He asked if he could (direct quote here) "Play a gunslinger but with crossbows". I told him there would be several options, but none directly linked to the gunslinger. He ended up a fighter focusing on crossbows.
That sad, he tried on more than one occasion to buy a "sight" for his crossbow, and more "bullets". Personally I was not annoyed and just corrected him on his terms. The party however was highly offended.
He actually no longer plays with us, and its fine since we have picked up several new people since he left.
In terms of taking out a class just due to the flavor its given.. I might do that with something that required an alignment that didn't fit with things (like the need for evil to gain Assassin) But I would just rule out the alignment, rather than a class or prestige class.
If a party has both an inquisitor and a ranger, both of them have track, are specialized monster hunters, etc. So, Inquisitors and Maguses are out.
What do you do if your party has two rangers?
Since Golarion has had interaction between the east and the west sides of the world, I see no reason to ban any of the classes that appear in it. The only class I'd ever even consider banning is a Summoner, and I'm willing to let someone play one before making that decision. I want to see if it's truly as abhorrent as people have claimed it to be, even though the flavor is also something I don't agree with.
In my own campaign setting, I can't really see Summoners nor Gunslingers existing. The former is just an overly specialized variant of a Conjurer, while the latter cannot exist as guns have not been invented yet in that world. The only way to really play a Gunslinger is if your character came from another world or plane, since in some circles guns do exist. Cavaliers might be replaced with Fighters (they can have more or less the same stuff with all their feats) and Samurai (which still make sense in context), and I'd probably incorporate many different Prestige Classes into it, with some rewritten fluff to fit the world overall.
Can you show me in his post where he says he plays in Golarion?
Skulls & Shackles is set in Golarion.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you show me in his post where he says he plays in Golarion?Skulls & Shackles is set in Golarion.
The Shackles huh? What the hell would Asian-themed characters be doing there? Why would there be ninjas?! It's not like there's any culture close to the region that would spawn characters that that class made sense to have. Wait... Still, Tien Xia is on the other side of the planet, so there's no good way for Tien characters to show up there by canon... Oh.
:D
If a party has both an inquisitor and a ranger, both of them have track, are specialized monster hunters, etc. So, Inquisitors and Maguses are out.What do you do if your party has two rangers?
My party wouldn't have two rangers, for the same reason.
I used drow ninjas in Forgotten Realms. And they will appear again.
Seriously, the main reason why people ban ninja is the name... If they were named Assassins (as base class alternative to prestige class of the same name) there wouldn't be a quarter of arguments against them (what'd be left would be "they are better than rogue dangit!").
Of the currently existing classes I wouldn't ban any of them (maybe synthesist Summoner - but that's because I don't want to have to check players' math for that class every damn level) except Gunlinger - which does not mesh well for me with Forgotten Realms. Yes, smokepowder exist on Toril but I don't feel that PF firearms rules are approrpiate.
I would ban non-appropriate ideas for characters (which could lead to hard time introducing some classes) when GMing a specific type of campaign. For example, if I'll get to GM evil campaign (which my players were interested in) the Paladin will be obviously out because there would be no place for good characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll totally ban for flavor if I feel something doesn't fit into the campaign. I prefer it as a banning reason over issues like perceived balance because it follows the fiction elements of the the campaign over the mechanical issues which I think should be secondary.
What classes could your campaign do without?
The above mentioned thread has GM's saying they do or would ban a class due to the flavor that Paizo gave it. I am not understanding this. A class's mechanics is just a means to an end. Nobody has to be making a character that get rages/gets angry, and hits harder due to his untamed nature. He could make a living by guiding people into dangerous area, and is able to channel some mystic force when it is time to fight. The fatigue could be a result of the force causing him a lot of strain. The ninja concept class does not even need the ninja class. I would use a ranger to do it, for those that say eastern classes don't fit.
In short banning class X does not really stop the concept from being played so why ban the class?
Core Barbarian is near about perfect for statting out a Samurai.
Same here, I abhor banning things, when I do it because of a legitimate balance/mechanical reason, not because I personally don't like a class' "flavor", after all, it's not my character.
I try to allow as much as possible as long as the game doesn't suffer.
Don't want eastern classes? Well, suddenly the samurai is just a cavalier, (maybe the players likes the mechanics best) or maybe a leader of a forgotten clan. The ninja could be anything from a rogue with bits sorcery to an over-equipped thief (maybe "ki" is actually his "utility belt" tools). Monks have dozens of archetypes to choose from.
No gunslinger? Well, give him a crossbow instead (this is might actually work better, I like gunslingers, but the firearms mechanics suck!) or a guy with some kind of magic device.
No alchemist? He can be a grenadier, or a shaman who focuses on potions rather than divine magic. Maybe he's a researcher, trying to find new weapons for his army, or a medic, looking for a cure for a certian plague, the Vivsectionist could be a rogue who is really good with potions.
No Wizard? Maybe I'll make a Sorcerer with the sage bloodline. No witch? Well, here comes my hermit druid who prepares potions and scares the villages. He even has a familiar, a very big, very strong familiar, but hey, it's there. No druid? Well a sorcerer with the sylvan bloodline might do.
No Paladins? Well, I suppose my LG Oracle of Battle will have to do, but he'll still follow his code as a Paladin, healing the wounded, fighting evil and spreading hope.
Can't play a half-orc? Well, I suppose I'll have to do with a very ugly human or vishkanya. No Gnomes? A Illusionist halfling, then.
All that banning does is making me find other means to achieve the same ends, so why not let the players choose whatever mechanics they like best? You can't change their characters if they don't want to, not really, but you can upset him. I know I'd be pretty upset if I found out whole classes (not even archetypes, classes!) were banned because he...
Taken from Another Thread.
What I meant by flavor was that it seems like the "flavor" of a monk is supposed to be a mystical sort of warrior who has special abilities that can be activated through the use of an inner energy they learn to harness and control; which kind of more or less fits perfectly with the psionics mechanics. I also felt they were a better fit than the PF Ki system which I felt was a bit limited and felt a bit more tacked on that even splashing them with psionics. The first time I merged psionics and monks way back when, I just was like "Y'know...let's try this." somewhat randomly while my friends and I were discussing the monk. At first glance there was some odd looks, but we did and then it felt like the prodigal monk. Like the monk it was always supposed to be, returned home to us. :P
Also when I use the term flavor, I mean in ways you can literally flavor your monk. An issue I brought up during my last thread concerning this subject was one that people have lamented (at least to me, I do tend to be the venting-post for a lot of my D&D friends) was that all monks were the same. Monks gained lots of abilities (many of them rather meh), but all monks got those. So an order of elven monks had the same features as an order of orcish monks, as an order of dwarf monks, and so forth. Now a possible method of archtypes and alternate class features existed, but honestly those types of things always bug the crap out of me, because then you have to keep up with all these different things you're trading out (which is part of the reason I prefer mechanics that function like Rage powers).
Whereas with this monk, you could use the same monk class and flavor it a hundred different ways. You could for example do stuff like separate your monks into different styles based on the needs of your campaign. For example, you might have NPCs from different groups who share certain philosophies on what feats, secrets, and powers to select. For example...
The Order of the Leafstriders might be an elven tradition that emphasizes finesse, using ki to deal damage, and fey-like stealth and trickery. This order focuses on Dexterity and Avoidance, selects feats like Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers, and chooses powers like Hammer, Painful Strike, Conscealing Amorpha, and Chameleon.
The Blackblood Warclan might be an orcish tradition who use their inner hatred and bloodlust to enhance their brute strength. They are entirely strength focused, focus on grappling, beating the snot out of people with their unarmed strikes, and emphasize powers that are brutish. They might select feats like improved grapple, improved drag, and powers like Grip of Iron, Expansion, Thicken Skin, and Biofeedback.
Meanwhile you might have the Order of the Black Lotus that is a terrible assassin clan. They learn the art of stealth, poisons, and killing. Their feats emphasize mobility, and their powers are things like Concealing Amorpha, Chameleon, and Prevenom Weapon.
Yet further over to the south, stands the Dojo of the Soul Fist, where humans and anyone else who wishes to learn the ways of spiritual arts can come and learn how to better combine mind, body, and spirit to produce incredible effects through the use of their Ki. These individuals focus on psionic feats like psionic body, speed of thought, up the walls, psionic talent, talented, overchannel, body fuel, psionic fist, and expanded knowledge. Their powers that they choose tend to be things like Hammer, Vigor, Dimension Swap, and expanded knowledge to access powers like Energy Ray, Energy Missile, Energy Cone, Swarm of Crystals, or Concussion Blast.
All of these "styles" will play very differently, yet all can be done from the same class. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. (@-@)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion is not medieval Europe. Do you ban all magic as well?
Would the Ninja class (not the concept) fit your world if it wasn't called Ninja, but something less "asian"?
Behold the power of racism. :P
I ban stuff... sorry to disappoint!
I usually ban classes that I don't think fit, but not fit the adventure but not fit my vision of Medieval.[...]
We each have our own ideas and rules, I'm not going to so mine are right or wrong, but I will say they work for my group and that is all that matters.
Sorry to point it, but it doesn't. Let me show you why:
You ban a class. Let's take "ninja" as an example. Then we have 2 scenarios:
1) nobody in your group want to be a ninja. So it's pointless to ban it, as nobody was going to roll one anyways.
2) somebody in your group want to be a ninja. Then he can't, because you ban it. Therefore, it doesn't work for your group. It works for you, and maybe some other people in your group (which might be, arguably, the majority of it). But it dosen't work for all of your group, as there is one person who isn't playing the class he would like to play. The guy who wants to be a Ninja, and can't.
That doesn't mean you aren't right banning it. One could argue that the majority has more importance than the individual, or that you are the DM, and therefore you put the rules. Your game is your club, people adhere with your rules, or can't enter the club. That's fine too.
However, it "doesn't work" for *all* your group. Because either your group agrees with you, and therefore the ban is not really doing anything, or someone in your group would like to play the banned class, and then someone isn't playing what he wants.
My party wouldn't have two rangers, for the same reason.If a party has both an inquisitor and a ranger, both of them have track, are specialized monster hunters, etc. So, Inquisitors and Maguses are out.What do you do if your party has two rangers?
So a player can be an Inquisitor if nobody else is a ranger?
Behold the power of racism. :PGolarion is not medieval Europe. Do you ban all magic as well?
Would the Ninja class (not the concept) fit your world if it wasn't called Ninja, but something less "asian"?
I would rather say culturalism in this particular case :P
Or a Cleric. In that case, I'd think about it. But, like I said, I didn't have very good experience with the class while running Carrion Crown, so I'm not sure.
But I'd definitely be open for discussion, if someone wanted to play, as opposed to outright ban in case there was a Cleric or Ranger present.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather say culturalism in this particular case :PBehold the power of racism. :PGolarion is not medieval Europe. Do you ban all magic as well?
Would the Ninja class (not the concept) fit your world if it wasn't called Ninja, but something less "asian"?
Well the world english dictionary defines cultural discrimination as a form of racism as well. For example, I could be racist vs Norwegians, Japanese, Chinese, Arabians, etc. Honestly, it astounds me when people ban mechanics based on racisms. It's one thing bad a class or mechanic because it's mechanically poor. It's another thing to ban clerics because the iconic cleric looks somewhat Arab, or because you cannot see past your own bias to realized that "Ninja" is just a title given to a set of mechanics that could represent anything from a feudal japanese ninja to an elite elven stalker or gnomish Indiana Jones wannabe.
I used drow ninjas in Forgotten Realms. And they will appear again.
Seriously, the main reason why people ban ninja is the name... If they were named Assassins (as base class alternative to prestige class of the same name) there wouldn't be a quarter of arguments against them (what'd be left would be "they are better than rogue dangit!").
.
This.
I was a little annoyed with Ultimate Combat. I don't like the gunslinger. I'm not a fan of 'guns' in the game... MAYBE the random OLD arquebus... but gunslinger was way too... clint eastwood to fit my vision...
Samuarai? Too similiar to cavaliar... and as such a waste of pages. If they wanted to make a samuraii... i wish it had been a bit more unique.
ALSO... I'm am NOT a fan of Anime or Japanese subculture running rampant... As MUCH as I don't want the world to be a carbon copy of europe... At least that's 'Fantasy Trope'... Japan just feels to 'real world' for me to enjoy in a 'fantasy game'. I don't like the 'standard' concept of Monks either... for the same reason.
HOWEVER... I DO like hand to hand martial arts, and as such... there are a LOT of things monks can do without focusing SOOOOOOO Heavy on Chi 'magic'....
Which brings me to ninja. I don't think ninjas fit well in my vision fo the world either. as MUCH as I don't want asia in Golarion... Sneaky shadow assassins? They're FINE... I like martial artists and Sneaky assassins. THey are both cool regardless of what you 'call them'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play a ninja that is not Asian in any way.
She is a 'shadow adept'. I told the players I was using the ninja class to represent a non-ninja concept, but it doesn't stick. They keep referring to her as a ninja regardless how hard I try to persuade them otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the world english dictionary defines cultural discrimination as a form of racism as well. For example, I could be racist vs Norwegians, Japanese, Chinese, Arabians, etc. Honestly, it astounds me when people ban mechanics based on racisms. It's one thing bad a class or mechanic because it's mechanically poor. It's another thing to ban clerics because the iconic cleric looks somewhat Arab, or because you cannot see past your own bias to realized that "Ninja" is just a title given to a set of mechanics that could represent anything from a feudal japanese ninja to an elite elven stalker or gnomish Indiana Jones wannabe.I would rather say culturalism in this particular case :PBehold the power of racism. :PGolarion is not medieval Europe. Do you ban all magic as well?
Would the Ninja class (not the concept) fit your world if it wasn't called Ninja, but something less "asian"?
I find it absolutely acceptable to ban something in the specific campaign because it belongs to culture not represented in the setting where the campaign takes place. However, the truth is that beyond the class and one feature names and proficiency in certain weapons, little in the Ninja class actually makes it strictly Oriental. By the same reasoning one should ban Fighters in dwarven campaign because Fighter is English term and as such does not fit with dwarven flavor.
BTW: Assassin is a name of an overglorified oriental sect member too. Why no one is bothered with that?
Samuarai? Too similiar to cavaliar... and as such a waste of pages. If they wanted to make a samuraii... i wish it had been a bit more unique.
Have you noticed that samurai isn't a separate class but an expanded archetype for cavalier?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ban stuff... sorry to disappoint!
I usually ban classes that I don't think fit, but not fit the adventure but not fit my vision of Medieval.[...]
We each have our own ideas and rules, I'm not going to so mine are right or wrong, but I will say they work for my group and that is all that matters.
Sorry to point it, but it doesn't. Let me show you why:
You ban a class. Let's take "ninja" as an example. Then we have 2 scenarios:
1) nobody in your group want to be a ninja. So it's pointless to ban it, as nobody was going to roll one anyways.
2) somebody in your group want to be a ninja. Then he can't, because you ban it. Therefore, it doesn't work for your group. It works for you, and maybe some other people in your group (which might be, arguably, the majority of it). But it dosen't work for all of your group, as there is one person who isn't playing the class he would like to play. The guy who wants to be a Ninja, and can't.
That doesn't mean you aren't right banning it. One could argue that the majority has more importance than the individual, or that you are the DM, and therefore you put the rules. Your game is your club, people adhere with your rules, or can't enter the club. That's fine too.
However, it "doesn't work" for *all* your group. Because either your group agrees with you, and therefore the ban is not really doing anything, or someone in your group would like to play the banned class, and then someone isn't playing what he wants.
Whatever.
I'm the DM. My rules go, without argument, period.
At the start of the campaign I'll state what's ok and what isn't, plus any houserules regarding how the game plays etc for that campaign.
My players have the option to play something that's "in". They all pick something and off we go.
We don't have pj wearing Rangers, generally all my players have multiple ideas and character concepts that they want to play and all of them have ready made back-up character in case of death - assuming they don't reincarnate/raise.
I've never had a problem with banned classes. I've never had a player come to me with a build that isn't "in".
I'm the DM. My rules go, without argument, period. I run a balanced game and my players appreciate this because it means we don't get broken-ness/over-powered PC's in our games. We don't want that sort of game.
If a few more DM's had the balls to say No occasionally, they would suffer the fate of the many, many DM's that post here complaining about their players.
My vision of medieval in this Fantasy game does actually include magic - Think Swords and Sorcery.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My party wouldn't have two rangers, for the same reason.If a party has both an inquisitor and a ranger, both of them have track, are specialized monster hunters, etc. So, Inquisitors and Maguses are out.What do you do if your party has two rangers?
So, if two players want to play rangers in your game, you take a snooker cue, break it in two pieces, hand each player one, lock them in a room and whoever walks out alive gets to play one? :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Most of the times, every player has at least 3-4 ideas for characters they'd like to play. Before the campaign, we sit down and discuss. It's a thoroughly pleasant experience and one of my favorite parts of the campaign, since it's wonderful to witness the brainstorming of cool characters, roles and concepts.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you show me in his post where he says he plays in Golarion?Skulls & Shackles is set in Golarion.
And people have been running APs in different worlds than the one's they're designed for since Shackled City. Hell, there's almost always a thread where people are talking about retrofitting the first three APs into Golarioin instead of Greyhawk.
Golarion is not the end-all and be-all of Pathfinder.
Behold the power of racism. :P
I wondered how long it would be before we got a completely baseless race card thrown down.
If I decide that gangsta rap has no place in my campaign, does that mean I hate black people?
What classes could your campaign do without?
The above mentioned thread has GM's saying they do or would ban a class due to the flavor that Paizo gave it. I am not understanding this. A class's mechanics is just a means to an end. Nobody has to be making a character that get rages/gets angry, and hits harder due to his untamed nature. He could make a living by guiding people into dangerous area, and is able to channel some mystic force when it is time to fight. The fatigue could be a result of the force causing him a lot of strain. The ninja concept class does not even need the ninja class. I would use a ranger to do it, for those that say eastern classes don't fit.
In short banning class X does not really stop the concept from being played so why ban the class?
I ban the alchemist, inquisitor and summoner because they get too much, don't balance for my game and I don't like them as a result, and some of their abilities.
I don't ban so much for flavour, but more due to mechanics and cheese. Cheesmanics.
I agree banning dosn't stop the concept being played. If you want to be an alchemist, be a wizard interested in alchemy and potions (and not with instantly made bombs that cost nothing to make and cannot be taken off you when you are defeated). If you want to play an inquisitor, an actual inquisitor as in real world history, that can be done many ways, without a bab granting special ability. IF you want to play a summoner, play a balanced conjurer without being op and always protected by an eidolon. We somewhat agree it seems!
I ban Experts, Commoners, Adepts, Aristocrats, Warriors and Monks. The amount of wrought in these classes makes me lose sleep at night, pray heavens forbid were they played at my table.
Once again, so glad to be in concert of thinking with a fellow refined intellectual. Truly, it's a glorious day for The Thought!
I don't even bother reading your posts anymore Gorb, so save yourself some time and stop stalking me.
Can you show me in his post where he says he plays in Golarion?Skulls & Shackles is set in Golarion.And people have been running APs in different worlds than the one's they're designed for since Shackled City. Hell, there's almost always a thread where people are talking about retrofitting the first three APs into Golarioin instead of Greyhawk.
Golarion is not the end-all and be-all of Pathfinder.
Behold the power of racism. :PI wondered how long it would be before we got a completely baseless race card thrown down.
If I decide that gangsta rap has no place in my campaign, does that mean I hate black people?
Does it indeed? Designing your very own world is just an extension of the setting of a single game. While doing this I have found you add character not only by emphasis, but by what is not present. Fantasy is huge, and it is easy to allow anything to fly. You can mix it with steam punk or allow classes like the gunslinger, sure, take what you want from the books, go right ahead. Yeah, that can be done, and I do like unusual classes in some games I've been in, those that sort of work with the setting but feel quite odd. That can be great. If a dm decides no though but leave plenty of options, trust in the maker. Alas as a dm with some restrictions on what is played, I have run into petulant players that want to whinge, trying to insist they are so special that your balancing or setting flavour restrictions shouldn't apply to them.
Now here is hoping the dm doesn't get too restrictive in other ways, and make it into a novel you play with no choice.
Notes on an experiment. One thing I've been doing of late, is allow a wide range of races for characters, but cut the classes back to the standard. That has worked out thus far, and can make the rules easier to keep a track of, which means smoother play in practice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i dont ban anything, mostly because if i do, everyone wants to know why, and also then everyone is drawn to whatever class is banned. so to save time and frustration i put everything on the table, voila, no arguments, everyone has fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people play the game in different campaign settings. Some people even play in worlds of their own creation.
This. Some of us play in homebrew worlds that existed 15+ years before the advent of Golarion. We use Pathfinder simply because it is in our opinion the best available ruleset for the game we love. That's why I prefer new core rules and classes being as setting-neutral as possible.
I play a ninja that is not Asian in any way.
She is a 'shadow adept'. I told the players I was using the ninja class to represent a non-ninja concept, but it doesn't stick. They keep referring to her as a ninja regardless how hard I try to persuade them otherwise.
And this too. I've always been in favor of refluffing, as long as mechanics don't need to be reworked. In my campaign, ninjas are nightblades (inspired by the old Rolemaster class) and psionics are mystics (refluffed and renamed everything: classes, powers, disciplines, etc). The difficult part, as noted by Umbral Reaver, is making it stick. Gunslingers, however, are out.
My world is heavily inspired in four sources: swords and sorcery fiction, epic tolkienesque high fantasy, north-western European pre-christian mythology and the history of Dark Age Europe (gradually entering the Middle Ages). In consequence, gunslingers are a big no-no, and oriental (non-refluffed) classes and equipment are not allowed.
It's not a matter of racism, as it has been suggested. I'm as passionate about Japanese culture as I am about the Vikings, the Celts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Normans and the Native Americans. I've purchased most oriental gaming material that has been published (from L5R to RQ's Land of the Ninja to the old Rolemaster oriental companion). So no racism here, it's just that these classes do not fit in this world just as they don't fit in Beowulf or the Norse Eddas, not without heavy refluffing. As is, they would disrupt the ambience, feel and continuity that I've been trying to establish for the last 20 years. If someday I build a world based in Asian mythology (and I've been wanting too for a long time) it will be the other way around.
In short, I think that DM's approval should still mean something. I'm fairly lenient regarding players' options, and in the few occasions when I outright ban something, it's for good reasons. I still haven't met a player unwilling to listen to those reasons.
Whatever.
I'm the DM. My rules go, without argument, period.
At the start of the campaign I'll state what's ok and what isn't, plus any houserules regarding how the game plays etc for that campaign.
My players have the option to play something that's "in". They all pick something and off we go.
Oh, sure. I already acknowledged that. It's in my post, under
"That doesn't mean you aren't right banning it. One could argue that the majority has more importance than the individual, or that you are the DM, and therefore you put the rules. Your game is your club, people adhere with your rules, or can't enter the club. That's fine too. "My point is that saying "it works for my group" is kind of self-delusion. It works in your group because, as you said, nobody really wants to play a ranger in pajama. Your group has no desire to play ninjas, so nobody cares if you ban them. Actually, nobody would care if you don't ban them either, as they don't want to play one regardless.
If somebody want's to play one, he has to find some other group. So your group still "works", at the cost of having one player not playing there.
It's something akin to make a private club, men-only. Then saying it works for you, because people in your club are ok with it. That's fine, unless you ask to the lady in the door, which is not *in* your club, but would like to.
I often make bans too, based on campaign. I'd like to restate it clearer: based on *campaigns* not *my personal prefferences*. It means I won't allow swashbucklers in a Greek-based campaign, or won't allow paladins in an evil campaign. This is different to say "I wont allow ninjas, ever, in any campaign, because I hate Naruto".
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM I ban stuff all the time and my players never complain about it.
The way I look at it is if I'm running a wide-open kind of game, like I am right now, I say anything goes. The reason is because there is no story theme focus or particular mood I am trying to achieve.
On the other hand if I am running a game that has a certain focus or mood I am aiming for than I will create a player's guide and quite often there will be restrictions or additions to promote that theme and tone. My players really embrace the atmosphere of the campaign and make characters according to the player's guide and then have lots of fun with them.
I don't restrict arbitrarily and I don't restrict vital aspects that will hose the party.