Trapfinding just isn't that great in a game where traps have been nerfed to hell and other classes can do it just as well (Ranger archetype). Though this really depends on how you see traps in your game. Poison Use is a really nice ability to have when you actually use poisons, but I think it's a fair trade.
As far as ki goes, Rogues don't get to apply their level where the ninja does, does not get an extra attack, get half the bonus to speed when using ki to boost speed (rogues only get 10ft, where ninja get 20ft) does not get to use it to improve stealth, does not get a reduction on acrobatic checks, and must use wisdom (which most players don't bump up very high on a rogue, they'd rather have a charismatic rogue).
All the cool ninja tricks require ki, which the rogue will have very little of (about half as much as the ninja). The rogue gets the stripped down version of ki which requires them to have the wisdom of a cleric to actually be worth it.
A ninja can also take Evasion after 10th level as a trick, thus only really missing out on trapfinding.
And the 20th level ability (which to be fair doesn't come up in most games) is much better. They get the ability to become completely undetectable even by see invisibility, or even true seeing for 2 minutes, and with every sneak attack they can deal ability score damage (no saves). Where with the rogue's master strike the enemy gets a save which is determined by the rogue's intelligence.
'where' and 'wear' are homophones regardless of the 'h' ("We're" is just pronounced differently, unless it's 'were' as in 'werewolf'). Also, anytime there is an 's' after an 'n' that 't' sound squiggles it's way in there, and won and one sound exactly the same.
I have a bigger problem with the antipaladin, they make a complete 180 on both good and law. I can see a paladin who trying to be good, but feels law is holding him back. Or the paladin who is lawful, but feels that good is holding him back and making him weak. But the, "screw this I'm gonna go chaotic evil" mentaility would never be seen in a person who could've become a paladin.
I've never had a player want to play pretty much everything under the sun, but never the anti-paladin. Maybe greywardens, necromancers, assassins, cannibalistic barbarians, body snatchers, doppelgangers. But never anti-paladins.
When players get upset with their GMs about their Paladins, it's a communication issue. Paladins are a touchy and highly variable class, despite usually being the chaste and lawful ones. If you wanna play one in a particular fashion, especially if you know it to deviate from the norm, but even if you don't think it's a big problem, talk to your GM about it.
If there's a problem, it's not that paizo didn't do a good job with the class or the alignments, it's the player and the GM didn't agree.
Ciretose has a problem of not knowing what he's asking for. It's not realism or control or even etiquette. In this thread, anyone with any ability to read subtle context cues can probably tell that he's just trying to understand why people are calling his games badwrongfun for asking/requiring his players to make an effort to keep the immersion.
If there's something that actually annoys me on these boards is that the "player entitlement" is so high that GMs who ever say "no" or even just "wait, let's work something out" are bashed as over-controlling GMs who don't care about their players and just want to narrate their own story. It never occurs to anyone that maybe, the GM might be hosing down one player so they aren't ruining it for all the other players. Because if another player is telling another how to play their character, they really just need to mind their own business, right? Forget the setting, forget any sense of a story, forget what the other players want. You as a player are entitled to a character and as long as its in the rules, you may as well play that and no silly GM is gonna stop you because rules.
If wizards are really supposed to be the all-powerful world-altering super mind, why ever have them at level 1. What's the point of levels if they don't mean anything. Beef up the wizard, make it a prestige class. That's what wizards in literature are, people who spent most of their life studying to gain great power, not usually the adventuring heroes who just happen upon a quest. Most don't usually work with people who do everything for you nor do they usually keep a bunch of bums who can't keep up with them. I mean some do, but those are always such awkward times.
A lot of people confuse background with roleplaying. Background is there to provide plot hooks, determine motivations, and connect your character to the world and while it can help with roleplaying, it is something separate. Roleplaying is playing the role of your character, getting into the mindset of your character trying to figure out how your character would act in said situation. Roleplaying isn't acting, it's going through the actions; you can even roleplay your character in 3rd person, "My character goes up to the door, puts his ear next to it to try and hear what's being said between the generals on the other side of the door."
However, every now and then you will have elitists who have their own version of roleplaying, and for them drawn out table-theatre is their thing.
It's good to hear you got it worked out. Sadly, some posters in this forum can't let things go, and many more just don't read past the first page, or even the first paragraph, some don't even read past the title. The best thing to do in the case of this thread is to just forget and use the hide button.
The real solution depends on what exactly it is about evil characters you don't like.
If the problem is, "He might turn on us" then it's not alignment it's the player.
If the problem is, "He'll put us in uncomfortable positions" then it's not the alignment, but the player playing his character like a fool.
If the problem is, "His character holds beliefs and does actions that make me (as a player) uncomfortable" then you should talk about it, out of game.
If the problem is, "His character holds beliefs and does actions that make my character (or other characters in the party) uncomfortable" then you should roleplay it when it comes up.
If the problem is that you're worried that the party will fall apart when such issues come up, the real issue is that you don't trust the other player/s (or yourself) to play characters that will put their differences aside.
A lot of people worry too much about "alignment" when what they're really worried about is party cohesion. The important thing is that they aren't playing the party backstabber. Even a LG Paladin who tosses the rogue in jail (or even worse just straight kills) for being too greedy can be a disruption to fun gameplay.
Both are true statements, if the GM fails to entertain the players, there are no players and there is no group and no game. If the players fail to entertain the GM, it becomes work, and the motivation for working on and presenting the campaign is gone, and the game falls to pieces because the GM is no longer putting in the enthusiastic work.
So one of the players was playing a 5th level Dwarven Foehammer in the game I was running. He overran a heavy war horse and proceeded along to overrun a second one. I guess having a +16 to overrun really helps with that, but it was an amazing tactical maneuver. Causing two people to lose their horses, one ending up prone with the horse.
What's are some ridiculous but amazingly useful tactics you've seen?
I think it depends on what's in the area. Otherwise it'd be like people stopping in the middle of a dungeon to buy gear.
But, you know, a druid with full casting, 3/4 bab, 6+ skill points, an animal companion at first level, and a handful of other class abilities is just so helpless without being able to shapeshift into a dinosaur.
The lawful alignment restriction for monk never really made sense to me. The monk is all about devotion. Devotion does not mean Lawful, otherwise clerics would have to be all Lawful as well.
I've actually have wanted to run an Japanese style game at some point with Yokai and Samurai (Cavalier/Knights), Ninja(Rogues), and Shinto(Oracles).
Suddenly this is a GM vs Player argument... Problem is that both are needed.
The whole thing is actually pretty analogous to producer and consumer. If the producer produces s*@! and doesn't take in the concerns and needs of the consumer, he doesn't have any and has wasted any sort of investment in such a thing. Consumers will just go to another producer, but they still need someone to produce even if that means that have to produce things for themselves.
What I find ridiculous is the thought that a player has spent more time, money, and thought than the game master; that would imply that the "player" has somehow taken control of the game since they are creating more content and contributing more to it than the "game master"/host of the game. I mean what's even the point of having a proxy game master who apparently sucks at narrating your stories? So you can play out your character in your world?
Players should have control over their characters, with this I agree. The game / campaign is a combination and fleshing of ideas. Sometimes the players even contribute to creation of the world. But if the players have the same responsibility and power as the game master, what is the GM for? Everyone is a GM.
Ugh, I hate inconsistency in gaming as well. I can recall one game where the DM decided that the horse that I summoned with the mount spell(he has weird summoning house rules) was considered an enemy mage and an extreme threat, but in that very same city a Goblin teleported right into the port and not a single eyelash was batted at it.
However being spiteful towards the GM is never helpful because if the GM is going to be a control freak they will be a control freak and their NPCs will be invulnerable and you will be super frail. Communicating with and working with the GM is infinitely better.
Following that same note, I hate being a player in games where I'm trying to play a character that fits in the game and somebody comes along with a cheese build disregarding setting entirely and expects to have complete control and has a hissy fit when any of their class features is even the slightest bit limited. (This has happened before and it was such a horrible experience that I left the game)
Also something that bothers me is the way that exotic weapons work. I feel like exotic weapons shouldn't be its own subgroup but should be a regional thing. Guns should just be simple weapons (like crossbows) that are exotic outside of Alkenstar. Eastern Weapons shouldn't be exotic in the east. I also feel that monks should be able to use weapons appropriate to their region otherwise they really do just end up being Chinese immigrants or Asian Wannabes (if they aren't really from the East). Exotic uses of a weapon should still be considered exotic but it should still fall under simple / martial.
Doug OBrien wrote:
See, I see this example as rubbish. In your excuse for not multiclassing and then the problems with minor magic (and you describe yourself as a sorcerer). Your problem can easily be fixed with magic items and UMD (which is a class skill for rogues), but if you don't want to go down that route, you don't even need to multiclass, that's what Eldritch Heritage is for.
Why people really want the Ninja over the Rogue:
The real reason people want ninja instead of rogue isn't because of fluff, it's because the class was just built better. Traps are hardly used, and when they are, they are hardly an encounter. When people want to be sneaky of course they would rather have poison and better stealth than the trap finding ability which can easily be handed off to other classes with archetypes (the ranger trap finder is better suited to this than the rogue)
The ki pool that a rogue gets is based on Wisdom which isn't very important to rogues. Flavor-wise, how often do you hear someone who wants to play the "wise" rogue? The ki-pool that the rogues get is half as effective: obtained way later (advancedcit's smaller (no bonus for level), no extra attack for just having ki, and half the speed for the expense of a ki point that ninjas get, for some reason being a ninja makes you better. The ninja on the other hand, which gave up evasion for the ki-pool can get it unhindered with an advanced talent (which is worth it when you realize just how little traps come up and affect adventurers in a actual pathfinder game). This is the biggest offender, the reason people really love or hate the class.
The ninja tricks, which one can use are stupid awesome and mimic the effects of 1st-level spells. This makes minor / major magic pale in comparison when you realize that you can cast any of these as long as you have ki points to burn. Finally, the master ninja tricks which the rogues are completely cutoff from are even able to mimic abilities from other classes such as assassination from the assassin class and unarmed damage as a monk, they have bombs that blind, they can walk through walls and walk on air.
If they didn't kick ki in the balls before handing it to the rogues and limit the master ninja tricks to the ninja, there probably wouldn't be as big of a reaction that caused such a huge split between players who wanted to play a clearly superior supernatural ninja and GMs who don't want that "asian fanboy smut" of a class that sticks the rogue in the shadow in a figuratively.
So I'm running a short game for a while, and well my players are so used to sooo much cheese that things were awkward when starting up.
They aren't terrible players, but they are so used to cheese and a harsh DM (not me) where if they didn't cheese they would be screwed. They are used to gestalt, and feats that bumped up their stats, and everything stacking, and taking flaws and traits, and getting feats for writing a background, and looking for rule exploitations just to be on par with their campaign (and still being outshined by the DM's OPNPCs), I know because I've played in those campaigns.
But I'm trying to run a game not drenched in such cheese, and so I have to convince them that a 14 is indeed a good number, that a 20 in an ability score at 1st level is amazing, that there are DCs below 25, that I'm not going to set them in a fight with a black pudding at 1st level, that they aren't going to be outshined by every npc that they meet.
Overall, it's going good.
So has anyone else dealt with this situation?
Unless you're looking to be romantically involved or shipping someone, I don't really see the fascination with having someone with the opposite orientation game with you.
I mean, you'll never see someone say, "I'm not into chubby chicks, but I sure would love to game with a 'chubby chaser'" or "I'm not really into dating outside my race, but I'd love to game with some interracial couples".
To me, it just seems like it really shouldn't ever be the deciding point of whether or not to game with them.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Conversely, Atheists can be some of the worst sheeple. As they say, a little bit of knowledge is the most dangerous thing.
I think the problem comes from when people think they know it all. Most humans are susceptible, regardless of what forces they believe control the world. I used to blame religion too, then I looked at atheists, I use to blame my country for being stupid, but then I looked at all the failures other countries were capable of, and then it clicked. The world is full of stupid people, and everyone is stupid at some point.
We don't have infinite time to check and verify everything and so in order to delve and focus in one area, we tend to neglect another so we have to rely on trusting that someone else who's spent a significant amount of time on their selected subject. Sometimes that other person we trust is family, sometimes it's a priest, sometimes it is a scientist with credentials.
Who you trust with what information is important. Anyone who trusts a single source for large quantities of information is doomed to be a tool. Atheist or theist.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Humans do indeed have an evolutionary pre-disposition to making up patterns and explanations. That is why it especially important for everyone to think critically all the time. Atheists are generally just the people who understand this and take it the most seriously I have found.
Atheist elitism for the win. Clearly, not believing in a god or gods means you think critically about the world. You're not going to be scammed if your an atheist etc. If you are one of the sheeple who does believe that's there's a god out there, clearly your mind is poisoned and you just aren't as likely to understand how important it is to think critically.
When I was in middle school, I lived in SC, because I have darker skin and black hair, someone thought I looked Muslim, so I got threatened with, "You a towel head? You gonna blow up some planes?" while the kids cracked their knuckles...
I find that hard to believe is religiously motivated, unless by "religiously motivated" you mean a movement against a religion (and really ethnicity is the proper term at this point).
Religion doesn't tell people to kill and hate people, specific preachers do. If a preacher tells someone to kill or hate someone, religion gets blamed. If an insane doctor tells someone to cut up a living person for "science", the doctor is blamed.
I'm not Christian, and I'm not Islamic, hell I'm not even religious, but I'm not going to blame religion for people being dumbasses.
Sure religion is intertwined with culture, so is science, technology, history, environment, government, and economy. Even without religion, dumbasses will still find a reason to hate someone. Such as "Lesbians are removing the amount of available women", "Immigrants are taking all of our jobs", "Japanese are corrupting our youth with violent and lustful cartoons and video games". Blame religion if lets you sleep at night, but it's just stupid humans being stupid.
I too know a guy that only plays females. He always plays them as lesbians (often also into bestiality) pretending to be male, until he reveals he is an "extremely beautiful and elegant lady". His female acting skills aren't as convincing as he thinks they are.
Out of character he claims to be a lesbian in a man's body. He's also super sensitive especially about drug jokes or poop jokes (which rarely comes up, but he reacts so strongly to them if they do). He is somehow managing a polygamous relationship with two girlfriends (who are also into each other, so it's an honest relationship). Oh yeah and he keeps random weapons hidden around his house (to be prepared for a burglar at any time) which he is proficient in (I cannot actually verify this claim, but I believe he spent the time to learn how to wield them). He's actually an okay guy, but definitely not what you would call normal.
Actually most wars were fought for territory and economy. Even those religious wars. Religion is just a big excuse. Most people don't fight wars because "God told them too". Most people fight wars because they are paid and/or their authority told them too. Sometimes they will have "God's support" according to their priests, higher ups, etc. However, that's not the reason people usually fight. Religion is really only there to comfort them for if and when they die.
You use religion as a scapegoat, leaders use religion as a tool, but soldiers use religion as a comfort.
Andrew Turner wrote:
1) Those are hilarious.2) That's a pretty broad generalization. I know plenty of atheists who will rage on satire.
So you know a couple of atheists who aren't afraid of satire. I know a couple of Christians who aren't afraid of satire. That doesn't mean that all Christians are cool. Stupid stereotyping. Dealing with satire has absolutely s%*@ to do with what you believe.
Personally, I think most atheists aren't at all any better than the religious types. Here's why. They will read something in a magazine and believe it must be true. They don't really check the credentials, or the science behind it. They aren't any better the masses that sit around and take the word from a religious figure.
There are just as many quarrels about history and what is ethical or moral within the atheist community as there are with people who believe in one or many gods.
One of the dumbest things I've heard was Religion vs Evolution. That doesn't even make sense. You can believe in evolution and still have a religion. I've heard theories about how "God made life able to adapt to survive and grow". It's creationism vs evolution, but people are stupid and mess it up, making broad generalizations.
What do you call people aliens and magic? Are they religious too? Even if they don't believe in gods?
Many atheists are not respectable in my eyes because they act like they are better than most people and yet they're only reporting what they read. No better than a priest, really.
I respect most scientists and people who pursue the truth. To do such is admittance to the fact that there's still things you don't know. The only reason that so many religions are refuted is because of so many claims of things that have been shown to be contradictory to what actually happens or what has been found. I mean would you trust a scientist who's claimed so many things that have been proven to be false?
In fact, if most religions weren't so stagnant from becoming organizations and trying to standardize and preserve their doctrines and control its followers, there'd probably be more religious people.
There is an iconic with a 6 in charisma, his name is Harsk. Harsk doesn't have the social issues that some GMs associate with a 7 in charisma. He isn't constantly talking, he isn't being super annoying. Npcs aren't constantly attacking or refusing service to him or his group. In fact Harsk is stoic...
What's being argued for is that the writer's intentions to be clarified so that the GM can focus on decisions such as where the plot will go, what encounters to use, what monsters and bad guys to send out against the PCs, how the PCs will react, etc. However, if you believe that GM's time and energy should be deciphering archaic passages and fighting off rules lawyers who interpreted said passages differently, that's your prerogative.
I do believe that such a project would be exhaustive and wouldn't add much at this point (perhaps if Paizo ever does a second edition, they should consider this). One of the suggestions given was to mark all the words that are game terms (such as capitalization or italicizing, this is already done with spells actually); do you really believe that would make all the rulebooks multiply in size?
Let's also clarify another thing, I'm a rules light kind of guy (I play Pathfinder for the immense flavor it gives), so I prefer to have some freedom with the game. Too many rules and clutter the gameplay. I would never ask for more rules. But by God, I want the rules that are there to be clear so that they can be consistent.
I'll be honest my understanding of stealth and perception in this game has floated back and forth and even now I'm still not sure if I actually really understand them.
High charisma, low wisdom, always ask questions about everything. Have brightly colored and outlandish clothing. Don't be a disciplined follower, play an oracle for a gnome effect.
You could wear a big red cone hat and a big fake white beard and stand still in grass watching people as you try to be incognito.
I think Paizo is doing a great job with Golarion but with just that one setting it is busy. To add in all the baggage that comes from D&D, even just the good baggage, Paizo would have its hands full. I'd rather see Paizo grow on its own roots. I doubt it will be done with Golarion by the time the mechanics need readjustment and a new edition is due. In the mean time, there's nothing stopping you from converting creatures into your home games.
Maybe I'm the one with a messed up morality, I don't know. I remember seeing videos of the death of Hussein, I wasn't really into it but I knew a lot of people who were cheering and even a few who laughed because it was a "bad man" who died. I saw that as nothing more than petty revenge, and I saw the people who laughed at death as twisted because this is a guy who had no impact on their personal lives. Sure, the government did terrible things under Hussein's rule, but nobody remembers all the terrible things that our very own country has done, Vietnam has a lot of examples but it is not the only time. This is coming from the guy who thinks that torture may be necessary at times to save lives. While I think it's wrong that innocents get hurt, I understand that casualties happen when using mass weapons.
Let's all gather our money and hate to track down and kill a guy. What for? His army kidnapped and raped. So you fund another army who also happens to kidnap and rape.
Some people like to stir s++$ up. Some people like to make scapegoats. Hey guys, let's all kill all the bad men in this world. No one's really taking the time to notice that maybe it's not the bad men corrupting the world but terrible humanity and it's violent and controlling behaviors that produces these "bad men". I don't think that a lot of people who like to rile people up realize just how similar they are to the people they rally against. Ignorance can found some of the gravest injustices.
You know what I really hate though, when someone gets angry at me for not wanting to get stirred up in issues far away that I'm not really well informed on or even necessarily involved in; especially when I have much more impertinent issues at my doorstep. Some people would rather hammer up someone else's home instead of take care of their own woodwork.
Kender... Every encounter with them has always been a plucky, kleptomaniac who won't shut up. What's worse is they've usually got a thick suit of plot armor allowing them to survive and the parasites live amongst sentient creatures stealthily pocketing the resources away. They insult everyone they can, rubbing salt into the wounds. They are the most vile of evil, and they have mystical abilities to deter the Paladin's pinging radar.
I had one session where I was playing a bard who had a rival way back when they were younger who beat him up and stole of my bard's songs. Years later the rival had become famous playing my bards songs, so during an extremely large and important concert I knocked him out (with my fist!) and ended up replacing him and got to play my very own songs showing off my own band which had an illusionist to work the lights...
and it was glorious
Abraham, nobody is telling anyone to sit around. However if you aren't paying attention to what you're doing, you could very well make problems worse. Sometimes you have to step back and make sure what you're doing is right. If you aren't doing that, you're being irresponsible and could very well contribute to the miserable state of the world. Congratulations on being proactive, but I think it's much better to be proactive in a way that actually advocates your ideals. It's a pain to have people sit on their asses when you're trying to accomplish a goal to help everyone, it's an even bigger pain when someone escalates problems because they don't know what they're doing.
I also love how often people can talk about how totally righteous they are. If you don't pay attention to where you're throwing that money; you could very well be funding the same kind of evils that you despise (funding a military that kidnaps and rapes to hunt down a man for kidnapping and raping). I find it more interesting that there are so very many people who are willing to toss money to other countries yet are also unsympathetic to the poverty within their own country. I think has something to do with "Third World" and "First World". If you're in a "First World" country, you're just not trying hard enough, but if you're in a "Third World" country you are dependent on that money. Never try to improve a person, just give them stuff; that's the first world way.
Also, how do you "hack" a tabletop? If a GM isn't up to the task of saying no to when a player intends to break the game, then the GM is failing the other players.
Let's get into more detail about this, about "breaking" the game. At what point does the game "break"? For me, it's when the players can no longer enjoy the game. If that comes because the GM can no longer provide challenges, check if it's the lack of innovation from the GM or if the player's have an "I win" button that they use for every scenario. Sometimes it is one player that has all winning tools, in which case you have to spread those tools to the other players. The game breaks when people are not having fun.
In no case does the "developer's intentions" matter... For all I know, the developers could have intended for the Solars to take divine retribution for being called down to grant someone's petty wish.
"The rules say..." and "I'm just playing my character" are no excuse for someone to allow themself to be abused.
By that logic no one should ever post anything in these boards. The problem is that you think we're discussing houserules when we're discussing what makes and breaks the game. There are some people who are under the belief that the 15 minute day is a houserule, it's not; it's how they run the game.
If I interpret the control of cohorts, summons, and animal companions as just commands with the underling having the ability to accomplish said goals however they see fit(AKA GM Control) and someone just decides to let their players control the explicit actions, neither of those are houserules when it's simply not covered in the rules.
People come here and describe their games and how said interpretation worked or didn't work in their game. It's not houserules, it's not them changing the rules, it's them making a ruling where there were no rules to begin with.
It's ridiculous the amount of BadWrongFun claims they get tossed around on rulings that were never written or what the devs intended. People coming in and saying that they are playing the game right. You come in here when people describe their game and what works and how it works, and you get pissed off because you feel like they're telling you how to run your game, but they're not.
Unless there are actual rules written to counter a GMs rulings, then they are playing by the rules and their experiences are quite valid. Don't ever come in here talking about how it's not what the devs had in mind because that piss poor argument ain't gonna cut it.
Hell, even PFS has houserules, and I haven't seen anyone throw out that PFS examples as invalid. That alone pretty much proves that a community isn't going to have a singular concept of what works.
Based on the rulings of a great many other things, I think it depends on the day. Just because something is not what the Devs intended, doesn't mean it should be banned. Did the Devs intend for players to get to level 20 and go past level 20? Should it be banned?
What the Developers intended is a useless and stupid argument. You have the rules, and you have the GM to judge the rules. I don't know what the Developers actually intend, I can guess, I could even ask them but that could be different than their intentions when they wrote the game, or maybe they didn't have any intentions on it in the first place, and now they like where it's going, maybe it could change in a week because intentions change. Should it matter? Not at all, because the developers aren't running your game, they just write the rules. They should write the rules well enough that you don't have to pull out rule 0 every 5 seconds but they don't know what's going to work in your game. That's why there is rule 0 in the first place. So if you don't want solars gated in your game (or milking wishes), don't allow it. If some other GM is okay with it, I don't see the problem.
Honestly what I think the Devs intended is for each GM and their players to run a game that is enjoyable for the whole group. Of course, that's just my theory.
I love snow. I love cooler weather and pretty much die in warm weather. Though, I apparently generate more heat than most of the people I know.
Snow is great on vacation when you can make snow sculptures and pelt people with snowballs, but yeah I can see it being a pain in the ass when you're trying to go to work; especially when people don't know how to drive in it...
So Paladins are being played wrong for not being suicidal or handing over everything with no real guarantee that things will be better?
Let's say for instance the Paladin and everyone else give up, throw away all their stuff, and hand themselves over to the BBEG to let the children go. BBEG could now slay them all with ease (since they don't have their magical gear and are likely guarded and bonded) and in the mean while have one of his guys burn down the annoying village since the pesky, interfering "heroes" are out of the way. BBEG doesn't even have to break his word, he just needs to use the loopholes (which the demand was full of) just like any devil would.
The biggest problem here is that you placed them with an "impossible" choice that requires thinking out of the box. If your players do not show signs of constantly coming up with clever ideas and doing so enthusiastically, then you're only frustrating them. By frustrating them, they will frustrate you with their actions. They'll give up and take the easy way out along with it consequences and both sides of the screen will be frustrated.
Before you fall into a wreck on why your player's did this "heinous thing", you should probably spend some time with your players and see what they actually enjoy. If you wouldn't enjoy running what they'd enjoy playing and they don't enjoy what you enjoy running then this will end in a train wreck.
The fact that it has that long of a list, probably says a lot.
A rouge also got reasons to complain. 8 skills / level and at middle level a caster can do the same thing or better with one spell. :(
Heh, a lot of people forget that martials have to constantly invest into something to actually get better at it while casters get better at everything automatically through caster levels.
I can't believe someone would complain about that sort of thing. I think I would be driven insane if I couldn't explore an area or check something because "it's not written" or if nothing reacted to crazy decisions because "the writers didn't account for it". He might as well be playing a pen and paper video game. Don't get me wrong, I love video games but I come to table top games with expecting the ability to do the unexpected. You can't do that with video games because you'll break them.
It's a GM's job to keep the game fun and challenging, and if everyone just runs by the modules "by the book" there is no accounting for different party compositions or sizes. It can become easy to "break" make "too challenging" or "too easy" which can lead to boredom or frustration.
I don't think it has anything to do with 4th edition, it's just a player who came to the table expecting the GM to be just a processor for the game thinking it was entirely analogous to video game except on pen and paper. I guess he didn't think a GM was supposed to be there to account for challenge disparity and unexpected actions; which probably explains why he had such a hard time GMing his own game.