Darkheyr's page

Now if you come up with something that actually compares to a gaming situation, and not being a jerk then I would tell you how I respond to game related situations.

But that's just my point, wraith - those situations I was talking about involve the DM being a jerk. Thus, it's completely irrelevant whether some Rule Zero line in the rulebook gives him whatever power he chooses.

As said before, there is a great many situations between the level-headed guy making a ruling on an unclear situation and letting you reverse an action since it was based on that ruling (or making it near the end of the session where the difference is trivial), and the other guy making up houserules on the spot and refusing to compromise at all because he doesn't know the actual rules of the game, and has the "right" to make them up as he sees fit.

And thus, I am arguing against the blanket statement that it makes a bad player to not always accept everything coming from a GM's mouth as gospel.

Knowing every rule is not practicable, especially contradictory ones. Otherwise we wouldn't need such things as FAQ answers.

Besides, it's one matter not remembering the basic "d20+Bonus must reach the DC or more" mechanic of the system. It's another matter not recalling the intricate workings of a spell or combat maneuver you are using roughly twice per year, potentially group wide.

It's much easier these days thanks to d20pfsrd.com compared to the wagonload of 3.5 splatbooks, especially with all their iterative revisions of polymorph abilities, but PF is by no means anything you can completely memorise by heart. There will always be something you will need to look up if you are not using it regularily.

Humour me with a question, wraithstrike.

I am your GM. I come to your house to play. Mid-session, I stand up, walk over to your cupboard, and smash three of your glasses.

You then make a scene about what the hells I am doing, while I kindly ask you to continue the game.

Who of us is to blame for holding up the game?

As mentioned before, I'm specifically not talking of trivial situations. Trivial things don't need to hold up anything at all.

To clarify again, Coriat:

Practically speaking there's a difference between dying at the end of a session due to a rule that could be easily misread - I've actually had issues coming from a lack of english comprehension or translation issues, for instance - and with the GM otherwise being a level-headed guy, and starting out with some new folks I barely know yet, with a DM suddenly claiming halfway into the session that Mind Blank does not protect from mind affecting effects, despite my character having moved wherever he is only because he knew he was protected, then refusing to investigate, refusing to reverse the situation or anything of the sort, and then just forcing a character death due to that.

I think you can guess as to when I'll react how :)

And yes, at some point, the argument definitly turns away from arguing about the rule, though that does not necessarily end the argument itself.

To use the above Mind Blank example, I'd probably early on start asking to just reverse the situation before going in, and talk about it later. It's less a question of ruleslawyering, but of houserules on the fly killing your character for no good reason - especially when your expectation of the rule was elementary to you getting into the situation causing the problem in the first place.

Heh. My thoughts exactly. I thought it was completely silly, but when I replied to it (and keep in mind it itself was a reply to my earlier post of "good rules lawyers don't drag out the debates pointlessly") I got jumped.

Actually, I understand why he wrote that - your choice of words suggests a very all-encompassing meaning, to an interpretation of "When a GM says A, it's A, no matter what!"

Then Kain started disagreeing with a definite blanket statement and bad-player-implications, and that's where our tangent came from.

And in hindsight, while I might have mischaracterised your post thanks to the entire discussion in between, I still can't find myself to agree with the "no matter what!" approach you seem to support with your posts, because such situations are a matter of social interactions - a GM can't do whatever he wants, no matter what the rules say, because some of those things he wants might just turn him into a GM without players, and if very unlucky, even without friends.

It has nothing to do with bad players or rules lawyering. Neither mine nor Vy's nor Big's post were an attempt at suggesting that a jerk GM would be an excuse for pointless annoying ruleslawyering. It has everything to do with the fact that a GM is not by definition always right, and that in some (rare, mind you) situations a group or a player has every right to just go 'woah, hold on there'. Not to question a game aspect, but to question the GM's behaviour - no different from questioning rude behaviour in other moments of life.

I mean, if my boss comes up and starts randomly insulting me, I'm going to question his behaviour even, and the GM is usually on a far less problematic social level to myself.

...and what exactly is that quote supposed to say, now?

Please, Kobold. You're getting childish now. We're on a tangent discussion, and I don't buy that you aren't smart enough to see that.

But even from that standpoint, the game was handed off BY THE GM, to his or her handpicked successor.

Not necessarily. Once I took over where no sort of 'handover' took place. It was a bit of a nuisance until I worked all the bits and pieces back together into a story, but a far cry from being impossible.

If you wish to attribute ownership to a game despite most of it's elements being gone, feel free. I however don't equal the presence of one person, GM or not, to 'thats his game', because he is no more and no less replaceable than everyone else at the table. As Big said, the GM has precisely as much control as his players are willing to deal with.

Yeah you can. Done it for years now. To paraphrase Tim Curry's Cardinal Richelieu, "Players come and players go, but one thing remains the same. And that, is me."

Either you have an entirely different understanding of a campaign or what makes a story, or you have an entirely different understanding of picking up right where you left. Even in the most bland campaign with the most exchangeable characters you'd still need to shuffle things around most of the time unless you just happened to stop the last session at a very lucky spot.

Have you read what I actually posted? If so, why do you have to desire to inform me that anyone can leave whatever game he wants?

The idea that being a rules lawyer is sensible and justified if the GM is a jerk is just so mind-numbingly strange I don't know how it even belongs on this thread. Is that really how gamers try to handle social problems?

You are free to tell that the people who have claimed such. You'll have trouble finding them, though.

Actually, it does. It provides a ton of special treatment. Ever heard of Rule Zero? I'm sure you have. But if you think anybody here's arguing that that treatment extends to social conventions...

No, it does not. 'Rule Zero' is not a free card to randomly ignore rules on the spot. I don't think it's too much to ask for the courtesy of a DM informing me of any houserules before they kill me. Better yet, before I start playing whenever possible. In fact' if this is a new game among people knowing each other, it'd probably be smart to discuss any houserules among the entire group to avoid such situations in game.

That much cannot be disputed. I know you're trying to turn this into another "power-mad GM" thread, but this is literally how the rules are written. This is the amount of power the GM gets. Whether he goes mad with that...well, that's up to him and his shrink.

Yes, it can. As said, the rulebook can declare the GM to be God Supreme for all I care. We're talking about social interaction, not a rules discussion. He can claim arbitration as much ashe wants - if he's being an idiot and detrimental to the player's fun, he'll be treated accordingly.

Yes, even then.

Being a Gamemaster does not make him exempt from manners and common courtesy, nor does it provide any form of special treatment, or protection from being an idiot. "Player entitlement" has nothing to do with it.

And I'm sorry, but the game I run is 'My game' in the sense that if I decided to stop running it it ceases to exist, while if a player leaves, another one can be added or things can go on with less players. The game is not an anarcho-syndicalist commune. . .

The DM actually has a lot more choices in the scenario, because despite statements otherwise, it is the DM's game. Without him the game does not go on. Any single player cannot make that statement, only as a whole, and even then, if replaced with other players, the DM's game goes on, while they have to find another one.

Having taken over for a GM myself, and having handed over the GM post to someone else... nope. Fallacy. If no one else is willing to GM that might hold some sort of limited truth to it, but only then.

And a GM has to find new players first, too - they do not magically appear in complete groups while that other complete group can't possibly hope to find replacement.

Plus, as to his game not going on: A campaign can be salvaged right from the point where you left off. It might lead elsewhere as the original GM intended, but that's not a problem by itself.
Completely new players on the other hand mean you basically need to start a new campaign. You can't just 'drop them in' where the other guys left off.

The rules can declare the Gamemaster to be the supreme god of the universe for all I care. That still does not make it his game at the table, but our game. The GM is on the same team. There is no player versus gamemaster. He is as much responsible for the fun at the table as everyone else, and his role as a gamemaster does not give him any leeway in behaviour.

We're not talking rules here, we are talking social interaction - and that can't be regulated in a rulebook.

And once that comes, you're done. You have the choice to prolong the inevitable by arguing, accept it and move on, or accept it and quit.

You seem to be quite hung up that the only choice is for the player to move on or quit - as opposed to the GM getting his act together before the party decides they need a new GM. Or, of course, the GM walks away because he can't cope with whatever it is his players are doing.

But refusing to let anyone else play until you get your way isn't a good option by any definition. No matter how wrong the DM is.

Yet neither is insisting on a questionable ruling that costs that player his character. What irks me is that you put the blame solely on the players shoulder, going so far as to call him a bad player, in a situation that, to me, is clearly a case of a bad DM.

How exactly do you reason, as a blanket statement, that the player has to shut up?

Except that, at the point of the argument, the point of arguing is convincing him, especially if others chime in.

If it eventually becomes obvious that it's not going to happen - I've said my piece to that.

I sure hope you are not suggesting to never argue in the first place.

While just about everyone here agreed that most cases don't need immediate rules discussion or are easily resolved now or later... At some point things stop being that simple. If a GM choses to ignore a clear-cut rule to the detriment of the player, it will piss that player off - and the resulting argument simply cannot be laid squarely on the player's shoulder.

He is not a 'bad player' because he doesn't just shrug and accept the DM being an idiot - and you implying this is the direct cause of the argument.

I'd call attributing this:

"the DM is only one person so I have the right to stop the game for everyone to argue with him/her."

... to someone who has said nothing of the sort a bit more than "I made a comment".

In my experience, most rules issues tend to sort themselves out before play, not during. Those in-play are more likely to be obscure rules you don't use every day - grapple intricacies, difficult terrain, things like that.

And most of that is usually reasonably clear-worded - clear enough to avoid most ground for argument.

Theorycrafters discussing game rules on a forum are not a very good representation of that.

Better only if you count his out of combat use. But there, everyone is better than the fighter from basic design.

One more reason for me to consider giving fighters more skill points at least.

The main differences I can think of are:

(1) In RPGs it's relatively trivial if the decision goes against you. Worst thing that happens is you have to make new characters. In pro-sports, there may be huge amounts of money and national prestige riding on it. So it's far worse to have a wrong decision in sports.
(2) In RPGs, arguments that get out of hand can ruin friendships. The professional referee is rarely a personal friend of the players.
(3) In RPGs, the GM is expected to make up rules on the fly.

You forgot (4): People play Pathfinder for the enjoyment of the group, not the audience, or because it's a job.

I took it as he would keep going until everyone said let it go, assuming a character death was at risk.

Pretty much. What happens afterwards would depend too much on specifics for blanket statements.

Practically speaking there's a difference between dying at the end of a session due to a rule that could be easily misread - I've actually had issues coming from a lack of english comprehension or translation issues, for instance - and with the GM otherwise being a level-headed guy, and starting out with some new folks I barely know yet, with a DM suddenly claiming halfway into the session that Mind Blank does not protect from mind affecting effects, despite my character having moved wherever he is only because he knew he was protected, then refusing to investigate, refusing to reverse the situation or anything of the sort, and then just forcing a character death due to that.

The first one can even be easily reversed after session most of the time. The second? So out of there.

It's not a fair assessment because you're assuming the GM is never going to change his mind or see your side. This concept Kain put forward is kind of a big appeal to probability, as I understand it. Sure, it's possible that a disagreement between two parties could result in them coming to a deadlock and nothing ever happens from that point on, but it's highly unlikely. If I cite a rule and I'm wrong, I will apologize once I'm proven wrong. If the GM has been proven wrong, I would expect the same from them. If the GM or the Player, is still insisting on his side, you have much bigger problems than what's going on in game. Yes, there's a point where arguing with a GM, or with anybody for that matter, becomes useless. But if you've actually reached that point there are issues going on outside the game. I think that is a fair assessment.

This. And in consequence, I find it questionable to blame a player for 'holding up everyone's fun' just because he happens to be a player and not the GM.

Please, don't let barbarian vs fighter DPR discussions bleed over, here. It's a little bit more involved than a few oneline-posts.

I'm not avoiding the question. It is merely completely irrelevant to the argument I made in the first place - namely that I'm going to insist checking the rules first in such situations, and that a GM does not have free reign to change rules on the fly just because he feels like it.

But fine, if it actually gets to that point where rules were checked and subsequently ignored, I'd keep arguing up until I had clear indication that it's completely fruitless - at which point it'd come down to the people and the specific situation in question (and how it was specifically handled) whether I'd approach it again after the session, or if the group loses a player, possibly immediately.

I don't see the relevance of the question considering Kain constructed that scenario entirely in his head, but there you go.

Unless that person is you?

What, speaking up that someone is behaving like an idiot is now being an idiot itself?

Edit: And just a small question aside - what's with the ad hominem? I'm talking about whoever is in the situation, not me specifically. As said, I'd speak up if it affected someone else just as much.

You are still avoiding the question directed to you, and sometimes one person being wrong can still lead to the other person being wrong if they don't handle it properly, and yes sometimes, you in a lose/lose situation. This can be one of them. You stall the game, and the players get mad, or you just accept the character's death. Neither one is good, and unlike what you are doing now, if this were to happen in an actual game, not with your current group you may not be able to avoid it.

No, I am not avoiding. If a GM clearly misapplies a rule which then results in a character death, I'll simply not just shut up - not if it's my character, not if it's anyone elses character. It's in the interest of every player at the table to have situations like this simply not happen, and if they do, resolved properly and not just waived off.

And frankly, I wouldn't want to be part of any group where people would be so utterly anti-social to get mad over 'their' playing time being 'wasted' while another player's character is being unfairly killed - and I damn well hope for anyone not to have 'friends' like that.

I mean, seriously? I'm having a really hard time to be sympathetic for players 'wasting' a few minutes of their time while the guy actually being wronged has to sit around for the rest of the session because the character they played for 30 sessions is dead for no other reason than the GM being a tool.

There is a convention in most professional sports that the referee is always right, even when he is wrong. If you think the ball was inside the line, and the referee says it was out, and you argue with him, you are punished, even if you were right. This is an accepted convention because it is better than constant arguments.

A lot of people apply a version of this convention to RPGs.

A group of friends playing Pathfinder and a professional soccer game are not exactly comparable situations.

And as a general statement I still don't share that opinion.

The very idea of giving one person in any social gathering the right to be a tool is something I'd not support, no matter the people.

Turning it back to being the arguing player's fault instead of the idiotic GM is something I find highly questionable.

I'm saying that once you've spent that time, however much you get, making your case, and the DM has ruled, it's time to move on. Whether that means to a new character, a new game or a new hobby is going to vary from person to person.

Ah.

That would depend on the rule and ruling. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

If the rules are obviously different from the GM's ruling, or at least subject to a questionable interpretation, I'd still not shut up - and not have to worry about stopping any other player's fun, because the people I usually play with would be standing right beside me.

So, no. It's not time to move on. If a DM is being an idiot, he's being an idiot, and it's not somehow my job as a player to make that less obvious by shutting up about it when him being that idiot becomes a significant detriment to the game.

Ah, no. That was strictly refering to Sneak Attack. Mentioning separately was more for some practical corner cases. As said, in most circumstances you can very likely apply that bonus.

... and I did, I just mentioned it separately for precision's sake. What exactly are you arguing for?

The Slayer can use Studied Target as a swift action at 7th level and there are no target restrictions for the ability, so I think it's fair to say that the slayer will always benefit from the ability. So that brings up the slayer's attack bonus equal to the fighter's, and closes the gap so damage bonus is only -3.

Always? No. But certainly in a vast majority of circumstances. An often theoretical difference, I know, but it can make a difference - for instance, that swift action could make a difference between adding Arcane Strike on top of that or not.

Darkheyr, you haven't answered my question. Let's say I'm the dick DM. Your character dies because I rule that you failed your save. You bring up the rule. I say no. Where do you go from that point?

I'm not saying that it is right. In fact, I said it was unfair. But explain to me how you get your way in this scenario, in a manner that doesn't cost the other players their game?

Let me turn that question around: The DM rules that another player's character dies despite it clearly being a misinterpretation of the rule, and further denies the possibility of spending 5-10 minutes to make certain, or at least making the judgement call initially in the players favour.

I don't know, would you really be annoyed at the player insisting on making sure? Because quite honestly, I'd probably stand up myself and tell the DM to damn well look it up, despite it not being my character involved.

How you can even pretend that the arguing player is the one costing the others the game and not the DM is beyond me, really.

Yeah, almost none of this applies to the situation other than as a nice roast red herring.

I expect the GM to know the rules too, and to inform people of changed rules (or at least change them in a consistent manner). But that's irrelevant.

What was said is that a good rules lawyer speaks up, then drops the matter after the GM made their ruling. And you agreed with the poster who said (paraphrased) hell no, GMs have to play by the rules too.

So you are supporting the idea that a good rules lawyer continues to argue after the GM has made up their mind.

And you and Dtbone are both wrong about that. That's not a good rules lawyer.

Again, being a good rules lawyer has nothing to do with whether or not you are playing with a good GM.

Then you misunderstood my words completely. Your own words were this:

Sometimes, at a certain point, even if it kills your character, even if the GM is wrong, you need to shut up and accept what has been ruled. Or leave the game.

And it's very specifically the killing my character bit or similarily significant situations that I sharply disagree with you.

Elaborate? A quote, a link?

I love the argument "the DM is only one person so I have the right to stop the game for everyone to argue with him/her."

Who exactly said that in your eyes?

No one has really been talking about anything but relevant situations, Matthew. Less important things can usually wait.

'Common sense that normal healthy social interaction should have provided' is obviously something people can disagree on.

There is a rulebook. If I play Pathfinder, I expect those rules to be followed. If those rules are changed, I expect the GM to tell me. And I expect him to tell me before I bring myself into a situation entirely based on the expectation that rules work a certain way. Preferably even before I start playing in that game if it's a significant change.

Besides, I tend to play with friends, not strangers. So what I expect to gain from not shutting up is making it clear to said friend who happens to be the GM right now that he is acting like an idiot.

Luckily, those situations rarely happen among even minimally reasonable friends.

'Rule Zero' does not give a GM free reign to be an idiot.

That's already assuming there is such a thing as an Assassin's Greatsword, or a Greatsword of Subtlety.

^ There we go. That's a bad rules lawyer. Particularly when that attitude and approach is holding up the game.

Sometimes, at a certain point, even if it kills your character, even if the GM is wrong, you need to shut up and accept what has been ruled. Or leave the game.

There is such thing as a bad GM. That doesn't actually have any relevance on whether or not you are being a bad player.

Flat-out no. It's perfectly fine to rule certain things for expedience sake in some minor situations - but in relevant situations I expect a Gamemaster to make certain a rule is applied correctly before the situation actually occurs.

Speaking as someone who GMs most all of the time, the idea that a GM has some special ownership of the game or the the GM is above following the rules is complete crap.

As someone who usually GMs as well - agreed. Wholeheartedly.

Yes, skills wise it's a straight upgrade from the fighter. The AC loss is fairly solid though.

Given the fact that a bit out of combat utility wouldn't harm the fighter either, I don't see that as a particular problem of the Slayer however.

Edit Kaouse: +4, yes. Unless you have the Gloves of Dueling, pushing it to +6. What you might be talking of however is Greater Weapon Focus, netting +1 over a barbarians normal Weapon Focus, assuming he takes it.

Reasonably simple calculation on to-hit damage bonuses:

I am assuming STR30, +5 weapon, and Weapon Focus / Spec. For ease of calculation I'll just calculate for a single one-handed weapon, given that other modifiers will be identical among both classes. I'll skip on things like Gloves of Dueling as well for now, just because I don't think the Slayer has any similar gear, offhand. Otherwise, it's +2 on attack / damage in the fighter's favour.

Fighter
Attack Bonus: BAB20 + 10 (Str) +5 (Weapon) +4 (Weapon Training) +2 (Greater Weapon Focus) = +41
Damage: 10 (Str) +5 (Weapon) +4 (Weapon Training) +4 (Greater Weapon Specialisation) = +23

Slayer
Attack Bonus: BAB20 +10 (Str) +5 (Weapon) +1 (Weapon Focus) = +36
Damage Bonus: 10 (Str) +5 (Weapon) = +15

Now, if the slayer can sneak attack, he adds 6d6, or an average value of +21 damage to each hit, bringing him to a total damage bonus of +36, or 13 more than the fighter.

Now, given the fact that he's at a full -5 attack bonus compared to the fighter, needs to enable Sneak Attack first and is still only +13 average damage ahead...

But, of course, there is Studied Target.If he can apply that bonus, he's on par regarding Attack Bonus, -3 points behind on damage without sneak, and +18 points ahead with sneak.

So, from a strict combat perspective, I'd say he's trading defenses / movement in heavier armour for damage. And even that only if he manages to sneak attack, which will usually require flanking - if not, he's still lagging slightly behind.

Oh, and at 20, the fighter capstone blows the slayer DPR out of the water, still.

Now, I can see one making an argument for the fighter becoming less attractive compared to the slayer in regards to say, skill points, but damage? Circumstantial, and you're giving up full movement in a full plate with a max dex of +5 (+7 if mithral) for it.

You're exaggerating there. It's not about suffering, it's about giving player an epic end battle that they have been looking forward to for many sessions.

I'm all for rewarding players, especially for well-thought out tactics. Sometimes though, you miscalculate during encounter design, and adjust a little on the fly to make it more memorable. It's not something that should happen often, so that particular slayer ability does not worry me all that much - but I understand the sentiment.

And honestly, if you don't trust your GM enough to do hidden rolls, you should consider finding another group. The GM is not your opponent.

Exactly, Vy. If I expect say, a spell to work a certain way and move my character into a situation with that assumption, and the DM then suddenly rules different despite me knowing differently... I'll drop it if it's a minor problem.

I'll definitely not drop it if it could damn well kill my character or similar, GM ruling or not.

@Darkheyr: Yes, I can make up a setting where any ability I please is never going t work. That doesn't mean it is the default assumption of the game. "Yeah but in my game" is barely relevant, if at all. When 75% of the things in the game are valid targets for something saying "but I use only the other 25%!" doesn't really pertain to the discussion at hand, which is "Does this work on 75% of the things in the game or not". The answer is: Yes.

And yet again you completely miss the point.

This default assumption of the game? It does not exist, or at least cannot be accurately constructed from a Bestiary lineup. My game only comes in as an example. We are not somehow playing different than intended, we are simply using different parts of it than what you seem to somehow assume to be a fictional default game.

Answering my post with "you haven't read the previous discussion, go away" is not answering my post.

Correct. The answers to your posts are apparently too cleverly hidden in my previous ones, or you simply chose not to read them. I'll leave it to you what it was, but either way - re-read them if you expect replies from me.

My issue was more with the idea that witch hunter was so broadly applicable that it is unnecessary to consider barbarian DPR without it. Not providing that is not representative... It is also a weakness in the argument to not compare a fully equipped character (that takes more effort, but *would* make the concept more solid)

My point exactly.

Maybe I should rephrase - my concern about him replacing the Rogue is that I don't like having the rogue as it is next to the Slayer. I'd rather have a revised rogue than a new class that does the same, but better. Suppose I could just drop the rogue and use the Slayer as a replacement in all cases.

We'll see how the Unchained option turns out - and the other Unchained stuff. I'm especially curious as to the new action system and combat tricks.

I'm more concerned about the rogue being too weak, and thus the Slayer replacing him completely, if I'm honest.

There's not much the Rogue can do others (especially the slayer) do not do better.

Quite clearly you have not read previous posts pertaining to the discussion between Ryn and myself. I'd be thankful if you had the minimum courtesy to at least do so before trying to argue against anything.

I'm actually not merely talking from play experience, Wrath. Game experience is a tricky thing - we've had games with definitly 'inefficient' characters. The NWN project I mentioned earlier consists of almost nothing but inefficient characters compared to a 4-man dungeon delving party facing level-appropriate opponents. I can't take those characters and use them in numerical comparisons.

What I am questioning what is being brought forth as empirical for the sake of this discussion. Making assumptions about unknown variables is a poor base for rational discourse, especially when there could be widespread and legitimate reason for things to be entirely different.

No offense taken, by the way. And don't worry, I've long ago learned to stop if a matter annoys me too much.

@Daneel
That sounds like an awesome game to be in, actually. :)

You are still attributing claims to my posts I have not made.

I am not saying some classes or monsters are more common. I am saying they can be, in some cases probably but not necessarily so, due to very simple reasons such as setting descriptions or not every game pulling things from anywhere but the core rules.

And that is why blanket statements like Rynjins and yours based on your personal assumptions of opponent distribution are not relevant to a direct comparison. Not because it doesn't happen in 'my' games, but because there is no 'standard game opponent distribution'.

The 'negative-towards-a-player" part is actually rather relevant. Tabling things until later is all fun and games until the rule being wrongly applied is killing your character, right now, or invalidating your build or action.

Back in D&D 3.5, I remember nearly killing a party member with a sneak attack because the DM maintained that grappling infers a 50% chance to hit the other grappler instead, and refused to either a) look it up or b) at least let me cancel my action.

Delaying the discussion until later doesn't always work perfectly, sadly.

Would you kindly point me to the place where I claimed FR was low magic?

Yes, there is quite a bit of magic in Faerûn. No, that does not automatically mean you will be facing vast numbers of spellcasters.

And I'd like a source for those 'fairly common' planetouched, please. Preferably something better than a population breakdown listing "Other" at 2%. Not even Calimshan (and Calimport) have them listed in 3E, which is pretty much THE place for genasi.

Though why we argue about it is beyond me. Games differ. Some places will support non-core races and lots of magic, some will not. Even within the same setting. Even within the same place in that setting, depending on the kind of game you run.

A bestiary line up does not translate into equal opportunity prevalence. There's only so many demon lords, archdevils and great wyrms around. A demon lord is not automatically just as common as an orc. Pit fiends popping up are a major event. In some games, thats not just "one of those four encounters of the day". So yes, even in high magic Faerûn, you will not run into them around every corner. You are in fact more likely to meet an advanced wyvern than a balor, or a humanoid opponent.

You're entirely free to play otherwise, but thats your game, just as the above is my game. Neither of us has claim to THE WAY things are supposed to be played.

And yes, that makes Witch Hunter heavily dependent on circumstance.

And just for emphasis: CR20 creatures in the bestiary are not all possible monsters. You are excluding all opponents with class levels, all PC races, all advanced monsters, all templated creatures, and the option of grouping up multiple opponents instead of a single creature.

In other words, you are excluding 95% of what I, for instance, regularily encounter at all levels of play. Your game isn't my game, and not the standard.

I'm a big fan of the Record of Lodoss War lineup. Villains such as Ashram, Pirotess and Karla are definitly my favourites, primarily because they are not truly villains. They have somewhat logical motivation for their actions, or just happen to be on the opposing side to the heroes.

What Darkheyr is claiming is that I am "exaggerating" the prevalence of caster monsters, based on...nothing. He just sad it, with nothing to back him up.

You are still getting me wrong. Completely.

What I am saying is that it depends on the game. You cannot assume specific distribution and prevalance merely from the number of bestiary entires and races, especially those outside the core rules.

I play in the Forgotten Realms mostly. Not exclusively, but mostly. That puts certain limits on the prevalence of certain creatures unless folks are fine with significantly altering the setting, or greatly stretching their sense of disbelief. You will simply not fight great wyrms every day, and you will not encounter the massive amount of spellcasters you assume unless it's in a location supporting that, such as Halruaa or the Empire of Magic era. And most non-core races are simply non-existant or exceedingly rare. You might introduce them, but again, unless you are willing to significantly alter the setting, that puts limit on them still.

What we in our own groups would more often encounter are groups of enemies, supported by one or two spellcasters - and yes, against those supporting casters, witch hunter would work. Not against most of the group, however, and not necessarily against the most dangerous member of that group.

Of course, your game might vary. Maybe your DM prefers Bestiary entries as they are without bothering to draw up team compositions, or advancing lower CR monsters. Maybe he ignores setting restrictions. I don't know. I don't care much, either.

Fact remains - you are making an assumption based on your play experience, and that simply is not shared by everyone.