Aelfborn's page

The key for any DM is to discern the risk level each player wants for his characters and employ it

The key, to me as DM, is to tell players the risk level of the campaign prior to character generation. The player is either on board or they are not. If not, they can find another game.

In my gaming circles, training is required to pick up a new class. The requirement may be waived for specific "gonzo" campaigns.

My own house rules on multl

1. Prior to character generation, see if I am using a class, archetype or other class archetype that might allow you to play your hybrid concept at first level if it reflects your character's initial background and training. This includes swapping urban/wilderness skills per the D&D 3e Cityscape Web Enhancment

(Note: This option is intended to help create traditional (i.e., "classic") fantasy archetypes from literature that should be playable at first level, but require multi-classing and/or PrCs to accomplish. Examples include Martial Rogues, Wilderness Rogues, Swashbucklers

(Note: Certain class or archetype availability may be limited to specific cultures)

2. If your first level character does not qualify for the above, there is 0/0 level multi-classing at first level per 3.0 DMG.

3. If you decide to have your character pick up another class after first level:
1. Your character needs a trainer, to convince the person to train them and time to dedicate to training (no adventuring). Certain classes may be restricted to certain cultures so you will need to go there.

2. If you choose to learn while adventuring and another party member is willing to help you in free time:
a. Multi-classing does not the armor and weapon proficiencies of the new class Your character have to acquire them through appropriate feats (including class bonus feats)
b. Multi-classing does not grant the new class's good saves. Your character has to the appropriate save feats.
c. You will have to meet prerequisites
example 1) Can't cast arcane spells and want to pick up 1st level in wizard? You must take an Arcane Apprentice feat granting the ability to cast 3 0-level spells before multi-classing into Wizard. It has a pre-requisite of Int 10 and Spellcraft: 1 rank
example 2) Can't cast divine spells and want to multi-class into cleric? you must take a Divine Initiate ability to cast 3 cantrips. The prerequistes are Wis 10 and Knowledge (Religion): 1 rank
d. Under option 5, your first level in the new class can be an archetype or involve swapping urban/wilderness class skills (dependent upon your background and/or the person training you)

Antipaladin
No evil characters in our campaign.

Alchemist
I don't care for the class.

Cavalier
A welcome addition although I prefer Rogue Genius's Talented Cavalier.

Gunslinger

Cool class, but does not fit my campaigns.

Inquisitor
Not a fan of the class.

Magus
Fills a niche. Welcome in my game.

Ninja
No place for it in my current campaign setting, but there is in another campaign that I am considering. On the other hand, it looks better than the rogue (and the boards seem to confirm this). I am not keen on that or a few of its class abilities.

Oracle
I don't care for the curse, but I like the concept overall. I am waiting to see Rogue Genius's take when they do the Talented Oracle

Samurai
To me, a samurai should be a Cavalier archetype.

Summoner
Not a fan.

Witch
When I compare it to Green Ronin's Witch for 3e, it just falls flat for me. I am waiting for Owen to update the GR Witch for Pathfinder.

Bloodrager
Don't care for the flavor or mechanics. It also has no place in my campaign.

Brawler
Conceptually, it might have a place within one or two cultures of my campaign. However, the playtest mechanics did nothing for me. Will wait to see the final version before passing final judgement.

Hunter
Although I don't like Hunter for the name of the class, it would fit into my campaign.

Investigator
Conceptually, I like the class except for the alchemy. However, it just does not fit my campaign setting.

Shaman
I wanted to like this class and it was the class I was most anticipating given that the Shaman is a classic archetype and I don't care for the Druid shaman archetype. However, like the PF Witch, the playtest version of the Advanced Class Shaman pales in comparison to its Green Ronin counterpart. I will will wait for the Owen to update Green Ronin's Shaman to Pathfinder

Skald
Another class that I was anticipating and, as with the Shaman, I found the playtest version disappointing. The skald is archetype I have wanted to see, but I don't like the focus on rage songs and rage powers. Assuming the final version stays the same, it won't be included in my campaign. I will look for a third party class or archetype to fill the niche.

Slayer
I wish this was called hunter. Other than that, I like the class. I have wanted a non-casting Pathfinder Ranger for my setting this fits my campaign nicely.

Swashbuckler
The third class I was anxious to see upon getting the playtest and, unlike the Shaman and Skald, I am not disappointed with the Swashbuckler. It is my second favorite of the Advanced Class Guide right after the investigator. Better, unlike the Investigator, it fits my home campaign.

Warpriest
Not a fan of the class name. I am torn with this class. I like that is a divine warrior that can cast spells at first level (I never liked the Paladin and Ranger having to wait a few levels to gain 0 level spells). I also like the spell progression. However, with regards to the rest of the class, I prefer the approach taken with Green Ronin's Holy Warrior with the exception that the Holy Warrior has a Paladin's spell progression.

1.
Remove Level Drain

2. Races
a. Immunities: Replace racial with a +10 save bonus except for things like undead, constructs, outsider, etc. not needing to eat, breathe, and/or immune to natural disease

b. Racial Variants: give variant abilities to replace the non-biological aspects of race (e.g., Defense Training)or take a cue from 4e and make non-biological racial abilities into racial feats.

3. Classes
a. Tone down the Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, and Wizard
b. Good Save Bonuses: Have the initial +2 good class save bonus be granted by the appropriate saving throw feats.
c. Give a unified base save progression by level
c. Replace class immunities with a +10 save bonus

4. Clerics
a. make clerics spontaneous divine casters (3e Unearthed Arcana)
b. Limit spells to domains plus a handful of spells
c. reduce armor proficiency to Medium
d. alternate Channel Energy abilities to replace healing and that are tied to domains
e

5. Druids
a. make druids spontaneous divine casters (3e Unearthed Arcana)

6. Wizards
a. require wizard spells learned to be those found in spellbooks and scrolls.

7. Archetypes
a. I would like to see the inclusion of some archetypes for each class that duplicate traditional fantasy archetypes including the cloistered cleric (non armor wearing), non-spellcasting ranger, urban ranger, martial rogue, and wilderness rogue like those found in Unearthed Arcana.

8. Multi-classing
a. change so that characters do not pick up all of the new class's armor and weapon proficiencies with a one level dip

9. Skills
a. increase cleric, fighter, Paladin, sorcerer get 4+int skill points per level
b. Ditch the +3 favored skill bonus. Go back to x4 skill points at first level and the 3e level cap (or just limit the +3 bonus to favored skills taken at level 1).
c. Disable Device, Handle Animal, Knowledge, Sleight of Hand, Use Magical Device: allow untrained to try at increased DC
e. Make Aberration Lore, Demon/Devil Lore, Dragon Lore, Fey Lore, Spirit Lore, Undead Lore into their own knowledge skills.

10. Feats
a. Deadly Aim, Power Attack, etc. should be something anyone proficient can attempt. Have a set penalty and set bonus. Then, have improved version feats that eliminate penalties or allow the player to determine the trade off (as the feats currently do)

11. Combat
a. Full attacks: Barbarians, Fighter, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues should be able to full attack and move more than 5'
b. Add Death and Dying Saves from Unearthed Arcana

12. Spells
a. spells that duplicate skills become caster level checks
b. Magic Missile requires to hit roll
c. Ditch Rope Trick

Adjust the encounter to the party.

Yep. This is the advice in the Gamemastering section of the core book when dealing with published adventures and adventure paths. The same advice was given in the 3.0 DMG (I don't own the 3.5 DMG so I cannot comment regarding it). The authors of both books state that the designers cannot know the players at the table, the style and preferences, or their characters and,therefore, GMs should adjust things as needed to take into account the players at the table and their characters.

How exactly do you perceive adventurers Simon?

I've always seen them as serious mercenary treasure hunter types who take the job professionally.

I am not Simon, but in my gaming circles characters are rarely, if ever, mercenary treasure hunters. Dungeon crawls and treasure raids on monster lairs are almost,if not entirely, non-existent. In my own games, it is ,usually, a bunch of people with skills and abilities thrown together by circumstances or uniting against some evil. My last campaign involved the following:

I used the above backgrounds to build the party's first adventure which centered on the rescue of the noblewoman while incorporating everyone else's backgrounds. The results of the first adventure and other characters' backgrounds/goals became the basis of the campaign's direction.

With the groups I know, pre-planning multi-classed builds and/or PrCs is often a waste of time. The GMs require one to find a trainer, convince them to train the character and the character must have time to train. Even multi-classing into base classes requires time and having to meet pre-requisites (e.g., want to multi-class into Wizard or Sorcerer and cannot cast arcane spells, you need to first have someone train you in a feat granting cantrips and the level after that you can take your first level in wizard or sorcerer).

If another PC is unwilling or unable to train you in a new base class, you are out of luck until you can find someone that can train you and, as stated above, you need to convince them to train the character and have time the time which may mean having to play another character for months or longer depending upon the class.

PrCs? If the PrC exists, there is no guarantee you will be in the right place of the world at the time you planned to gain the PrC. This assumes that your character even knows the PrC exists as some PrCs are either culturally, specific or secret organizations and might have to be discovered during play.

On the plus side, a number of archetypes and third party base classes are used to prevent mc hoop jumping and/or waiting for PrCs to meet some common fantasy archetypes not covered by official base classes.

Regarding the GM as just another player, do people not read the core book? The core book makes it clear that they are not just another player, but the person in charge of the game at the table.

1. It is stated on page nine that most GMs have house rules and, therefore, players and GMs should talk to ensure that everyone is on the same page. In other words, by default the authority as to how the game will be played for a given campaign (including which material) rests with the GM. As such, players should not just assume that the game is being run a certain way. Players and GMs should, therefore, talk to ensure that everyone understands the GM's house rules.

If there is any doubt to the default position being that the GM is in charge of the campaign including which rules are used and how the game is played, the book states under GM fiat that "the GM is the law of the game" (p. 402). As for those players that refuse to accept the GM's decisions, a page or two later, the advice to GMs is to remove players that are uncooperative and won't accept the GM's decision despite having talked to firmly.

Given, the above, I don't think it can't be anymore clear that the default assumption regarding the GM is that he or she is not just another player. He or she is, by default, the person in charge of the campaign (including allowable material and how the game will be played a t the table) whether individual players like it or not. Now, some GMs may choose to give up some or all of that "authority" and that is fine. However, it is an individual choice made by that GM.

Kekkres wrote:

i require anyone wishing to multiclass to seek out a 5ith or higher character of their wanted class and train with them for two months, the training itself is usually done in down time but the trainer must be found in active play. once a character reaches level 1 in a class though they no longer need any outside training.

I'd say "good bye". Lose two months, and a quest to earn what you have already earned?

So, there's a LOT of players who join me in REALLY hating this. Maybe even walk out of the game hate.

Don't do it.

There is no requirement that DMs and others cater to you or others that hate it. I and the people in my gaming circles would rather have you (and anyone one else that hated it) walk. We will, gladly, show you the door. We don't want people just "picking up a new class" or stating "well, I had this ability all along". That you object is no concern of ours.

Now, we do use third party classes, archetypes, etc, at first level to eliminate hoop jumping for many concepts that should be viable at first level. However, once play begins, we want people to have to find a trainer, convince them to train the character, and the character take the time to train if they want to learn a new class or PrC. We have no problem with a PC training another PC along the way, but then we house rule certain requirements much like PrCs provided the other player is willing to have their character train the character.

The nice thing is that we would let people know upfront that training rules are in effect for learning a new class and not to pre-plan multi-classed builds or for (most) PrCs. You don't know where your character will be in the world at a given time.

I deal with them by not including them. The only way that I would include dinosaurs is if I were to run an entire campaign in which "primitive" versions of the races and dinosaurs coexisted (in which case, most monsters would not exist). This would mean altering most of the classes that I would allow to reflect available weapons and armor. It would also mean other changes in which case I would turn to Ray Winninger's Dungeoncraft articles in which he built such a campaign as an example of campaign design.

What about the Oriental Adventures Shaman with the update from Dragon Magazine?

However, that is not how the gods of Golarion are portrayed.

While Golarion might be the default setting for Pathfinder, a third party product does not need to work with either the Golarion setting or its default pantheon in mind (My own preference is that they do not).

Can't even be resurrected by 90% of the GODS? A bit much.

I don't find it a bit much at all. Deities in many cultures and sources are not portrayed as all powerful. Their powers and abilities are, instead, tied to their specific domains. If it does not fall under their domains, they have no influence. In such instances, they may have to resort to bargaining, cajoling, or evening threatening another deity with the proper domain to intervene or stand down.

The limit is built in from a perspective that recognizes the above. There is nothing wrong with that.

Sweet! I see from the preview that there is an "urban barbarian". I can't wait to see your full approach to the concept.

Owen,
As mentioned in a previous post, I have two strong preference (it was three, but the Barbarian is, now, ready for release. My choices are

1. The Sorcerer for reasons mentioned in a particular post regarding Bloodline Transformations not being typical of fantasy sorcerers and, thus, should be an option rather than mandatory ability.

2. Also topping my list is a Genius Guide to Priests. As I mentioned in a previous post, the D&D cleric was, originally, based on militant religious orders like the Knights Templar, hence the armor, 3/4 BAB and d8 hit die. It is still held over in the divine classes. As a result, the robed priest with combat ability no better than the wizard typical in many cultures and fantasy is not supported. The only support it has really had was in 2e with specialty priests.
A supplement, whether Genius Guide to Priests or Talented Clerics, that brings back the AD&D 2e Specialty Priest as a spontaneous divine caster and aids the GM to tailor priests/clerics to deity beyond Domains and channel to include the armor proficiency, BAB, hit die, spell lists would be most welcome by me.

Soo.. anyone have strong options on what they want to see after we've done the cavalier, fighter, monk, rogue (all done), barbarian, ranger, and witch (now all scheduled)?

My condolences, Louis, to you and your family

I've never really "gotten" post-3e barbarians. Up through AD&D 2e, going berserk was the ability of one barbarian kit,

The same here. The 3e, Pathfinder, and 4e Barbarians have been an issue for me, because, prior to 3e, Barbarian != berserker. I have stated my dislike for the default the 3e barbarian (and later Pathfinder and 4e) on other boards for this very reason.

In 1e, the Barbarian was a non-spellcasting wilderness warrior from an "uncivilized" culture. Their home Terrain/culture provided them with additional abilities (equivalent to 3e skills and feats) and some cultural weapons in addition to their default knife, hand axe, and spear.

In 2e, as you point out, berserker was just was one of several "barbarian" fighter kits for the fighter (another being the wilderness warrior).

Another issue that I have with the post 3e Barbarian is tying berserker to "uncivilized" wilderness warrior. The berserk warrior from "civilized" society does exist in literature and mythology with examples that include both nobles and lower class members of society.

The saving grace for the 3e barbarian, in my opinion, was Unearthed Arcana. Unearthed Arcana introduced both the the Crafty Hunter and the Favored Terrain variants. The former substituted the Ranger's Weapon Style and Favored Enemy for the barbarian's rage ability. The latter allowed substitution of Favored Environment for Favored Enemy. With these two variants, you could recreate the wilderness warrior feel of the pre-3e barbarians (more so, if one uses the Weapon Group (cultural) variant also found in UA). A DM could create cultures with raging "barbarians", non-raging wilderness warrior "barbarian" warriors or pre-both. More options opened if the DM was willing to incorporate other ranger fighting styles from Dragon or third party supplements and use them to help distinguish warriors of different "barbarian" cultures.

That still left the "Urban" or "Civilized" Barbarian, but that was, for the most part, handled with swapping skills per customizing a character in the PHB or later urban/wilderness skills swaps from the Cityscape Web enhancement 1. An alternate ability for Uncanny Dodge was just a nice addition on top of that.

I don't see the connection between mythological real world cultures and non-core races. There are a few (non-core) races in Pathfinder inspired by non-European cultures, but they weren't among the examples you listed. Changelings, dragon people, dhampir, and tieflings all fall under the "humanoid with non-humanoid ancestry" category, which is relatively setting-agnostic. If hags exist in the setting, it's not a big jump to changelings existing. I'm further confused because you list sylph as an acceptable non-core race when it also falls into the same category.

I was not listing for African, Arabian, Asian, Meso-American, Native American inspired settings. For those, I will expect a different racial set. I was listing for what I like outside of those culturally inspired settings. Conceptually, I don't like Changelings, Dhampir, Dragonpeople, Drow, Planetouched races, plant people, Undead, etc. as PC races. I have no interest in playing in a campaign that allows them as PCs.

Regarding, sylph, my apologies.I meant Sprite/Pixie (although I am thinking of a PC race that is closer to Earthdawn's Windlings).

For myself, unless we are talking about a setting based on legendary/mythological real world cultures (e.g. Arabian, African, Asian), it is seeing anything other than core races*. If I see changelings, dragon people (with breath weapons), dhampir, drow, tieflings, etc. as PC races that is my red flag with regards to races.

* Centaurs, Goblins, Gnolls, Half-Ogres, Kobolds, Lizardmen, Minotaurs, Orcs,and Sylphs are acceptable additions/replacements for PC races provided only one or two are added. Otherwise, a 1 for 1 replacement for other non-human PC races is fine.

Very cool! Can't wait to see both the revision of the Monk and what you have in store for the Talented Barbarian.

Personally I think a lot of the issues that ever arise between player and GM tend to revolve around the fact the players "forget" that its the GM's job to tell a story. It is after-all their story to tell and the players are the characters in the story. In the last nearly three decades of gaming I have seen more than my fair share of players and GM's who nit pick at each others roles and its just absurd. The players should focus on playing and the GM focus on story telling. Simply put if either party doesn't like the way things are going then there is the door.

As someone that GM's about 95% of the time, I don't consider it my job to tell a story. If I want to tell a story, I will write a story. The story, when I run, emerges from play.

My role as GM is to create the setting (deities, races, cultures, nations, organizations, NPCs, history) and parameters (e.g., style, tone, house rules/variant rules, campaign rules (e.g. which classes are found in the setting), acceptable degree of optimization). The role of the players is to create characters accordingly (including providing backgrounds or goals). Once I have accepted characters and their backgrounds/goals, I set up a situation based on those backgrounds and goals to bring the players together and set them loose.

From there, we "collaborate" to "create" a story. I will provide hooks (and, occasionally, situations) based on the backgrounds and goals of the PCs, where the PCs go and what they done. Players are free to grab hooks or go in their own direction. Sometimes, the players suggest the focus for the evening, because they want to "explore" some aspect a PC or of the setting itself.

For myself, the two questions that need to be asked are 1) Why are you optimizing and 2) To what degree. For myself, optimization is simply a tool used to meet some particular goal. It is also not all or nothing. It is on a continuum. Furthermore, unless you are creating a character entirely randomly or randomly assigning things, you are engaging in some degree of optimization by assigning resources to meet your concept.

The issue to me is why are you optimizing? Is it for Butt-kicking? Power Gaming? To best represent a concept requiring compromise between several requirements (e.g, the farm boy that loved to race horses and hunt in the woods before enlisting as a military scout).

Butt-Kicking is one's focus on combat. It is an axis with a continuum separate from Optimization. Some people are more focused than others on combat, but playing with an interest for butt-kicking does not require an ability to optimize. Optimization is simply a tool employed by many people to increase efficiency in this area.

Power Gaming is focused on playing a powerful character and/or the mechanical benefits as defined/rewarded in the game (leveling, big numbers, feats, treasure, and/or spells). Again this is another axis and continuum and does not require knowing how to optimize. It is simply where someone's focus is. Many people play because they are interested in the carrot of bigger numbers and acquiring more powerful treasure or spells that help make them more powerful. This does not involve knowing how to optimize as it is motivational. Simply wanting to level to gain new skill points and skills, because characters grow would be low level power gaming as higher bonuses represent the growth mechanically which is done by higher numbers.
Optimizing for Power Gaming is optimizing to accumulate/emphasize power as defined/rewarded by the system.

Unlike Butt Kicking or Power Gaming which tend to be concerned with maximum efficiency. The third example is interested in a different form of optimization- compromise among several requirements to best represent the different aspects of the character mechanically. A character growing up on a farm would have certain skills. He or she would pick up different skills through hunting and additional skills as a military scout. For someone engaged in this type of optimization, all these different aspects need to be represented mechanically and to the appropriate degree (e.g., novice, expert, master). Furthermore, new skills acquired need to be accounted for as do skills that would have grown from use while those not used do not increase.

The other consideration in addition to why is the degree or optimization.

The problems that arise are conflicts arising from both the why and degree of optimization. The guy optimizing for combat and power is going to view the guy optimizing for the third reason to be non optimized for not optimizing to their focus. The third guy is going to be looking down on both the Butt-Kicker and Power Gamer, because they are not approaching from the character first. The Power gamer is going to look down not just on the third person, but the butt kicker, because focusing on combat and ignoring other things leaves holes to be exploited.
On top of the different focus, you have people with different tolerances for how far to carry the optimization. Butt Kickers and Power Gamers engaging in optimization tend to be more prone to look for benefits to squeeze out efficiency in order to achieve bigger bonuses. However, not everyone shares the same tolerance for degree. The threshold of what is appropriate is some arbitrary line of tolerance rather than some universal standard. When that arbitrary level is crossed, labels like Power Gamer, Munchkin, Min-Maxer (a more extreme form of Optimization) get applied.

I have a small problem with my dm. He has gotten real comfortable with the stance that he is the dm and there is always right and word is absolute. He has made at least a few questionable calls and the just rubber stamps it with I'm the dm conversation over. I will provide a few examples.

DM's word is final is the prerogative of the DM. If players don't like the rulings, they are free to find another game or start one of their own.

Banned barbarians cause they aren't fun for him to kill.

Banning a class is fine. DMs ban for all types of reasons including not liking a class conceptually or mechanically, a class being inappropriate for a setting. My concern is the "aren't fun for him to kill" qualifier. It sounds as if he views the game as GM vs. players or is a killer DM.

Didn't alot us exp for an encounter we stratgicly avoided ie: bribed our way through instead of fighting.

Many DM's only give XP for killing things. Not my preference, but it is legitimate.

Decided for his convince to add spell like abilities to a enemy who didn't have them ie: drow can levitate at will.

The DM is not required to have characters/creatures be a carbon copy out of a Bestiary. It can be an ability of the creature type in the DMs world, it can be a unique creature with a template or class.

Picking on a character ie: If he doesn't like someones character goes out of his way to kill it, like making it the first and primary center of all attacks.

This is just being a jerk and abusing the position.

This guy is a friend my group has been together for almost 8 years we play 2-36 times a month for about 8-10 hours a session, so we have logged some game time. We don't want to run him out of the group cause we like him a lot and these problems haven't arisen til lately about 3-4 months ago. Basicly just seeing if anyone has had the same type of issue and how they addressed and handled it.

Talk to him. If the problem just started up, something may have happened in his personal life. If talking doesn't work and the group is not happy, have somebody else run.

By the way, how do you play 36 times a month for 8-10 hours a session?

Just tell the players you don’t like to split the party as it means no fun for the other half.

Splitting the group may mean no fun for some players, but it is not universal. It also helps if a DM knows how to pace cutting between groups in different locations (which is a good skill to have in one's DM arsenal)

My campaign world has been heavily impacted by the PCs who have adventured in it.

Mine too. I may determine the base setting details (e.g., deities (including domains and priesthoods), races, nations, cultures (and classes and archetypes found within them)), but the PCs heavily impact it.

Over the campaigns, they have become rulers of clans, heads of religious organizations, saved one country from a usurper, started a civil war in another, brought down a powerful wizard guild, revealed the head of one religious organization having made a deal with a demon, rescued an imprisoned "villain" to help the save world, and founded a major town.

and then there are some Sandboxy DMs whom tell you "here are the primary established areas, but i can add extras based on player input."

Which is one way to handle it. It is just not a way that I like as a player, because now you are adding new areas and cultures to the setting.

Here's the other side of the coin.

Let's say we're having a campaign that takes place in Medieval England. Now yes, I can pull out my Earth Gazetteer, and talk about the nomadic empire of Genghis Khan, the samurai of Japan, Arab traders vying for mercantile superiority over the Indian Ocean. I can talk about the Aztec Empire, of Great Zimbabwe, the caste system in India.

But we're in Medieval England. You're not going to be playing any of those characters.

I have no problem with that. If we are playing in Medieval England, that tells me a lot of what I need to know regarding the things I listed. I may wonder why characters from nearby cultures are not allowed/included, but it would not be a big deal.

My issue is with homebrew settings without defined cultures and thought regarding basic cultural information. It makes it impossible to make meaningful decisions to choose a concept and ground the character into the setting. It also means that I cannot determine if the campaign setting will be one that interests me (based on setting and game elements).

Ideally, those niches should be unnecessary; the GM should adjust the flow and specifics of he game to account for the capabilities of the PCs, not the other way around.

Agreed. Pathfinder is a variant of 3e. The 3.0 DMG discussed tailoring the specifics to account for the party hand, because the designers cannot know what is going on in your home campaign. The designers of had discussed the single party campaigns in supplements and Dragon articles (which is not something new with 3e as some of the 2e Complete Handbooks also discussed such campaigns).

Setting is important to me as a player. There are things that I want to know as a player prior character creation, I want to know the following:
1. The available races
2. The culture and nations of the world. Give me an overview of each in a few sentences.
3. A 1-3 page cultural handout that is more in depth
a. Subsistence Pattern
b. Political Organization
c. Religion
d. Kinship and decent
e. Available classes and archetypes found in the culture
d. range of hair, eye and skin color
e. common names and, preferably, naming patterns
f. a list of notable NPCs, organizations that might serve as hooks to know (excluding those that are secret and the character would not know about)
g. creatures and places of interest that are known to the general might serve a adventure hooks
h. some current events and notable historical events for my culture
i. notes on economy, customs, social mores, views on punishment, body ornamentation, etc. get bonus points.
j. racial variant notes if applicable

4. If I choose a class like a divine class (e.g., Cleric or Paladin), a handout that includes the following:
a. Domains of the deity
b. tenets of the deity
c. Vestments
d. holy symbol
e. favored weapons.
f. key NPCs in the organization (e.g., head priests or priestesses)that the character might know, might serve as a mentor, etc.
f. variants beyond domains that, mechanically, separate divine classes of one deity from another: tailored spell lists, unique spells, domain variants, variant armor proficiency (e.g. not proficient in medium armor or even armor at all)
g. a few notes about holy days.

5. If I choose another class like Bard, Cavalier, or Wizard, I want a choices of organization (e.g., bard colleges, cavalier orders, wizard colleges, etc.) and details that are relevant as a player.

If a DM doesn't have the class related details and the majority of the cultural details listed above worked out ahead of time or says make it up and I'll fit in, I'll pass on their game.

stuff about being selective

Paizo, really, needs to extend the editing time. Anyway, I had wanted to add that I understand not everyone can afford to be as selective and still play. It is just that I would rather have a group that I am compatible with stylistically (regardless of system) or I find another activity- good gaming (however one defines it for themself), no gaming and all that stuff.

Psychic's Handbook*: In my opinion, still the best d20 treatment for mental powers.

Shaman's Handbook*, because I think it is a better treatment than we are getting with the playtest version. I would also like to see several of the PrCs converted to archetypes

Witch's Handbook*, because I think it is better treatment than the existing class. Again, I would also like to see several of the PrCs converted to archetypes.

Unholy Warrior's Handbook

Book of Fiends: excellent book and I like the Thaumaturge class.

Book of the Righteous: Great book and I would love to see the Holy Warrior class updated.

Hamaunaptra

Eternal Rome

*Books I would like to see Steve Kenson update as he was the original author.

I am pretty much the same way as Matt Thomason. While I don't advertise online, I too, when looking for new players, hand pick people that appear to be on the same page, because if we are mostly compatible, the small stuff is easier to iron out. I too am also upfront about playstyle requirements in order to a) help people make a conscious decision to be mature and walk away if it is not for them; and b) not be surprised if they get rejected. There is also an informal interview process. If passed and they are selected, the next steps are making an appropriate character (and ability to incorporate feedback) followed by a few sessions to see how they get along with the existing players.

It has worked well as my groups tend to last 10+ years, barring a player moving or in, two instances, a work schedule change conflicting with game night. Since implementing the above procedure, we have had to boot just one person. That player was the best friend of the person that took over DM chores when I had to take a hiatus from gaming. The player was the new DM's best friend. His style and outlook was so different from the groups' that the DM had to cater to his style to keep him from complaining, sulking and ruining the game. It was not until I returned and after two sessions excused myself from the campaign and afterwards talked with the DM that he admitted to being unhappy with the game. Since nobody else had said anything, he assumed that the others were having a good time. After, our conversation, he called everyone except his friend and learned that they were not having as much as fun and were tolerating the style.
As a result of the conversation, the style of the game changed the very next session. I came back and the long time members and I were happy with the direction.

The DM's best friend, however, becoming disruptive as predicted. He wanted combat and demanded we skip the noncombat stuff. When we did not, he whined or sulked. Despite being talked on multiple occasions, followed by a few one week suspensions and numerous chances from the DM and then my roommate who took over DM chores, the guy refused to adapt or change despite promises to do so (Well, he would change for a session or two before reverting). The final straw that got him kicked out was when he derailed the session and, nearly, the campaign by attacking an NPC and endangering two of the PCs (mine and his best friend's) trying to protect the NPC.

American player here and, you are completely off when it comes to the groups that I know. Among the groups that I know, combat is not a big. It is not uncommon to a session or two without any combat. A night's session might be trying to convince the stuffy druid to lose his virginity or helping a character gain clan status. When there is combat, it is, usually, 1 meaningful combat that might last 20-30 minutes of real time at the most and that is after doing some investigation to help a character save his reputation and home. Occasionally, there may one or two quick minor combats early on, but it is uncommon.

DM:"A cutpurse has stolen your pouch of moss! You see him dart off through the crowd."

Me:"Okay." *beat* "Boy, is he in for a surprise."

DM:"Aren't you gonna chase him down?"

Me:"For a pouch of moss? Why would I bother?"

DM: *headdesk*

That was great. Funniest thing that I have heard all day!

HOW CAN I BE EXPECTED TO WORK ON MY FINALS WHEN THIS IS GOING ON AAAAAGGGHGHH

sorry about that, stress + gaming anticipation = capslock.

In the same boat.

The point is, there was an overwhelming ridiculousness in 3.5 that, in order to play an effective character, you needed to multiclass in the extreme.

1. Effective character is, often, relative to the group and style. I have run games up to level 12 and had gone fine. No body min-maxed or multiclassed and everyone played nice. A lot of other people have run higher level games without problems (I don't run past level 12, because I have never liked those levels in any edition). This is not to say the potential for problems and/or abuse are not there just that requirements are often not absolute, but dependent on the people at the table.

2. As others have said, the big 4 spellcasters don't multiclass to be effective.

I don't like "hunter" either as it sound way too generic, but then again,it doesn't get much more generic than "fighter." :-)

When possible, I prefer the more generic for a class- fighter, monk rogue. Leave the more specific, flavorful and evocative for the archetypes.

It's not metagaming, though. Metagaming is the character acting on knowledge that only the player has.

I see it as a form of power gaming* which is not the same as optimization which is a tool often used by power gamers to create a character that meets their standard of power/effectiveness.

* In some gaming communities Power Gaming is defined as a style focused on being powerful and/or the acquisition of power as determined by the game. It is separate from optimization, because one does not know how to optimize to want to play a powerful character and/or for the accumulation of power (e.g., leveling, treasure acquisition).

A key thing to remember is that power gaming is not binary. It is on a continuum. Even desiring to see characters grow and pick up new skills or increasing bonuses in old skills because characters grow over and improve time would be having a degree of power gaming, because the character is gaining something that increases their effectiveness in the game. The real issue is that when and if power gaming is when it crosses an arbitrary threshold that impinges on the fun of the DM and other members of the group (the same goes for any style).

As to whether the group is upset that he might be making his decision on power gaming considerations or whether it is another issue such as that mentioned about messing with party dynamics I do not know.

Seriously people, this is the first lesson that children are taught in kindergarten. It really, really is.

Actually, it is taught in pre-school.

Its a game where you can change class in between battles

Thanks for the info. I had a feeling that it would be something about leveling and I would not care for conceptually. Now, I know exactly (and it is something I don't like conceptually).

Final Fantasy Tactics?

What about it? And as someone that rarely plays video games and never anything Final Fantasy, why is it relative?

"Does an individual player (or GM) have any obligation or responsibility to recognize the preferences of the majority of players when they game?"

I cut GM's more slack. They need to be able to run a game in a way and style that they find enjoyable and keeps their enthusiasm. If it is not enjoyable and they are not enthusiastic, the game suffers, burnout sets in, and/or the game dies. And, really, the GM just needs one or two other people having fun (if communication with the others results in an impasse) to have an enjoyable game whereas no GM means no game.

On the flip side, if the players are unhappy, they have free will and the ability to walk and/or start a new game (if someone else is willing to run). If it results in the GM having no players, he or she needs to reevaluate, look for new players that share the same style outlook, or find something else (even if as a player).

Isn't always siding with the group over the individual just as bad as always siding with the individual over the group? Do you not think context comes into this at all?

Not really. Even if I feel the person is right based on my style preferences, the one person is still the issue for the group. As such and we are talking about a group activity done for leisure, it is the individual's responsibility to adapt. If they can't, it is their responsibility to leave and find a more suitable group. My opinion of course.

Or it's not the the people involved our douchebags, it's that the single player has a different playstyle than the other people. Some players thrive on hyper optimization, while other groups get bugged by that. I mean that is pretty obvious just from reading threads here. There are things certain posters hate with a passion that whole groups have never noticed.

Agreed. Just because the powergamer or heavy optimizer/minmaxer tones down and offers to help everyone else does mean they are "douchebags". It means he or she is a bad fit for the group. It is still his or her responsibility to either conform to the group or politely excuse themselves and find another group (And the same would hold true for a non power gamer or optimizer in a group of them)

I mean at a basic level if your playstyle is different from the GM and the rest of the group, than you should expect to blend in or politely find a new game.

Agreed. The problem is that too many players feel they are entitled to play at a particular table and have their style be catered to when it is at odds with the GM and rest of the group. Even among friends, playstyles can be too divergent.

Honestly that would bother me even more than a complete new character.

"Bob, you were a great swordsman a couple months ago. Now you don't even know which end to hold and you're a master wizard? That makes no sense!" Obviously an imposter.

It would bother me more too.

Maybe you can actually change their minds, so your style doesn't bother them. Maybe you can find a style that works for you and doesn't bother them. Maybe you can just keep going with the conflict. Maybe you'd be best off looking for another group.

Yep. If you are the lone player standing out as "disruptive" and are called out- especially, the DM, you are better off finding another group that is more compatible if you can't conform. Telling people to suck it up when your style preference is at odds with the group is not the best thing to do. It will, probably, lead to people to telling you, "Suck this up! Get the hell out and don't let the door hit your butt on the way out!".

Calling the slayer class, hunter, that would make more sense since to me a slayer class would be a more specialized ranger that hunts one kind of creatures like dragons, demons, undead, etc..They would not have any nature themed abilities. They also would have better defenses against there favored enemy as well as offensive abilities. Man I wish that was what the slayer class was really like.

In my previous post, the last sentence of my Hunter comment was, originally, from a separate comment that I had regarding the name Slayer's name. In my original comment on the Slayer, I began by stating that I would prefer the name Hunter to Slayer. Right before submitting my post, I moved the slayer comment into the hunter and deleted the bit about renaming the slayer.

As for the Slayer, I can see it being a specialized Ranger or a specialized archetype for a Slayer class renamed Hunter.

My solution to the problem of players expecting healer clerics: Dms and designers should create the deities for their settings and assign spells and abilities based on a deity's sphere's domains plus a small list of general spells that make sense for all deities rather than granting the entire cleric list. Healing deities get all cure spells. Life deities (which may or may not be deities of healing domains) get spells like raise dead and resurrection as might Guardian of the Dead deities (if they have the power to release souls back into the world).

If a player shows up with a specific type of cleric, the other players know what to expect.

I'll throw in my suggestions and thoughts regarding names.

Warpriest: I agree with those suggesting it be renamed Templar as the Cleric was, originally, inspired by warrior-priest orders like the Knight Templars.

Hunter: I also agree with those suggesting Beastmaster or Beastlord. A Hunter class to me is not about spells or animal companions. A hunter class, to me, is about outdoor skills, favored enemies, favored terrain,and bringing down the quarry through one's own deadly skill and cunning.
Personally, the Slayer is what I expect of a class named Hunter. The description of the Slayer itself even describes it as the "consummate hunter".

Skald: I would want to see this renamed, because, to me, the abilities don't say skald, the only thing Scandanavian is that some vikings were berserkers and the use of the term kennings,, . I just have no alternative suggestions for names

Bloodrage: Not a fan of the name. I am also not a fan of the concept. I will let those that are a fan of the concept suggest alternate names. However, I do think Warlock, as suggested, by someone else would be a bad name choice.

Brawler: I wish I had another suggestion. I hear Brawler and I think abandon and toughness rather than training, discipline and technique. The latter to me is a Fighter/Monk hybrid. The former is something I expect with a Barbarian component.

That is cool. From the first post, I thought you had not talked to him and would have hated to see you go through the work and find the DM was not interested.
By the way, I think it is a cool idea as like the Warhammer setting and deities, but never liked the rule system itself.