shallowsoul's page

One thing you hear from people is an expectation to reach a certain level of usefulness in a party. I'm not really sure where and when this started. Sometimes ia gets so extreme that you would think the game should only contain class AB and C because of their supposed usefulness. We don't encounter this in our groups. We don't have a criteria that all characters must meet in order to be considered useful. There are many options to choose from that enable you to come up with all sorts of combinations. Now before you say it runs the risk of getting other PC's killed, the designers felt this wasn't an issue because we have plenty of options that are not optimal in any way, but they do contain flavour.

Certain classes are tougher than others, but if that's all that mattered, then that's all would show up to games which we all know doesn't happen. People give out about the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue and claim these classes aren't useful when compared to certain other classes but I think this is a bit unfair. How do these classes stand up to the monsters in the Beastiary is really where some of these criticisms need to be bases around. Now I can tell you we sometimes pick optimized builds, or builds based around teamwork, and sometimes around pure concept.

As far as I can tell, all classes when working together can end encounters so why the need to indulge in overkill? How hard do you need to kill something, dead is dead? What's the point in having abilities that way more than exceed the needed DC?

The best suggestion is to put the fear of god into the troublemakers.

You temp ban them enough, or actually delete their posts and I bet we will see an improvement.

I would also recommend adding a Baiting/Flaming choice when you click flag.

shallowsoul wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Yes, and there's a couple of posters pulling the old trick of when the debate isn;t going the way they want it to, they start asking for a thread lock and insulting other posters- which means that post gets flagged, which does sometimes end in a thread lock. It's a nasty, cheap trick.

The mods are just so busy I don't think they catch it.

This this this this!

I'm growing tired of a select few posters who act like they are the self proclaimed Paizo forum police and go out of their way to get threads locked just because they either don't like the topic, or they are losing their argument. They are dictating when a thread is to remain open or closed. I will not continue to be held prisoner by these people.

Nobody is forcing you to click on the thread and read it, nor is anyone forcing you to make a comment, especially those comments informing you that you are trolling and they will be flagging it. It's like these people think they are of so much importance that the whole board needs to hear them speak.

By the same token, it is this sort of melodrama that keeps things in a state of turmoil. No one is holding you prisoner. No one is forcing you to respond to the other posters and exacerbate the situation, nor to post things that are provocative.

It goes both ways. You cannot say they are being meanieheads when your hands are not clean either. And that goes for anyone and everyone in these threads. Over half the posts are accusing someone of being a troll or not knowing what they are talking about or debating if they are being offended or needling the other to get them in trouble. It's like driving with kids who poke at each other until someone gets smacked or the car gets pulled over.

What's holding me prisoner is the fact that I can't come in and have a discussion unless it's under their terms. Like I almost have to have permission to discuss a particular topic. I respond to those posters because in all honesty, nothing gets done flagging them.

My hands aren't clean but I don't go around looking trouble. Some people really don't need to take it upon themselves to decide that a post or a thread is somehow "trolling" when it clearly isn't. It's just a tactic to get the post removed or the thread locked.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but I found something in the PRD under the multiclass section.

Note that there are a number of effects and prerequisites that rely on a character's level or Hit Dice. Such effects are always based on the total number of levels or Hit Dice a character possesses, not just those from one class. The exception to this is class abilities, most of which are based on the total number of class levels that a character possesses of that particular class.

Yes, and there's a couple of posters pulling the old trick of when the debate isn;t going the way they want it to, they start asking for a thread lock and insulting other posters- which means that post gets flagged, which does sometimes end in a thread lock. It's a nasty, cheap trick.

The mods are just so busy I don't think they catch it.

This this this this!

I'm growing tired of a select few posters who act like they are the self proclaimed Paizo forum police and go out of their way to get threads locked just because they either don't like the topic, or they are losing their argument. They are dictating when a thread is to remain open or closed. I will not continue to be held prisoner by these people.

Nobody is forcing you to click on the thread and read it, nor is anyone forcing you to make a comment, especially those comments informing you that you are trolling and they will be flagging it. It's like these people think they are of so much importance that the whole board needs to hear them speak.

I can imagine the devs crowded around one of their member's desk and laughing their holes off at the way some of this is interpreted.

There is never going to be any kind of fullproof evidence as to the usefulness of the fighter class. It obviously works for some groups and not for others. We can go round and round all day long with each side refuting each others argument. Apparently the designers are happy with the class so I wouldn't expect a change. It seems to fit their vision of the fighter and that's cool. If you don't like the class then either don't play it, or homebrew the class to your liking. What you shouldn't do is go around telling people who like the class they shouldn't like it because of ABC. If you like the class then continue rocking it any chance you get.

Cheers.

The touch AC while sneak attacking wouldn't help much the Rogues issue is one of consistency and getting killed when trying to take advantage of sneak attack more than the damage when they have the ability to sneak attack. I'd opt for either Full BAB or offer them significantly more durability maybe both.

Personally I think the Rogue could do with Full BAB a d10 hit die and a strong will save(strong willed and shifty minded makes more sense to me than hearty constitutions) will he get it? No. But Paizo would never give them the touch attack thing either so we're already talking houserules at this point.

Allowing the rogue to target touch AC would actually free them up to focus more on defense.

1) Stay away from Touch Attacks. Touch Attacks rapidly break the game with the ability to abuse DPR. The Gunslinger is frequently banned for exactly this reason. The downsides of buying ammo do not equal the benefits of killing a BBEG in one round with a barrage of unavoidable attacks.

2) Give the Rogue full BAB. Go ahead. Look at his comparisons.
The monk gets full BAB whenever he flurries.
The cleric gets 'full BAB' with a spell, and has other spells to provide even more bonuses to hit.
The inquisitor gets 'full BAB' with Judgments or Bane weapon whenever he wants it.
The bard gets 'full BAB' by singing a song to himself, or tossing out heroism, haste, etc.

The Rogue is basically the only 3/4 class expected to get into melee that does NOT get 'full BAB' or something similar. He gets 'conditional damage'.

Go ahead and give it to him. It won't break the game. I mean, seriously, before 12th level, it's the equal of +1 or +2 to hit!

3) Damage non-reliant on sneak attack. STAY AWAY FROM STAT-BASED DAMAGE. That is how you break and abuse the game. Dex to damage is decried as necessary for the rogue BECAUSE he does such crappy damage. IF you give them decent damage, you don't NEED dex to damage.

I believe Kirth first posited giving a Rogue fixed precision damage equal to his sneak attack dice. Thus, a 6th level Rogue does +3 damage on every attack, but if he qualifies for a Sneak attack, that +3 becomes +3d6.

At 20th level that's +10 damage to every attack. That's also the equivalent of having a Dex score 20 points higher then your strength score.

Do NOT give away stat buffs to damage. That creates a mere excuse to level dip, as stats are not reliant on class. Furthermore, Dex to damage shoots down the intelligent rogue, the charismatic rogue, the wise rogue, etc.

Make the damage an extension of playing the class, that gets better as you play the class...just like the monk, rogue and inquisitor.
--------------
With full BAB a rogue will still be inferior to a true melee, who get TH...

Touch AC was never the problem with Gunslingers, it was all the other BS. Weapon cords have been nerfed by the way.

You could always make it a rogue class feature. At 8th level, a rogue uses touch AC when granted Sneak Attack.

I was thinking about instead of rogues having full BAB, would it be better if the class could target touch AC whenever they gain Sneak Attack?

I mean the whole concept behind a rogue's Sneak Attack was they were able to slip that dagger between the plates in an opponent's armour, or find those other soft spots that armour just don't cover.

He's just trying to make these boards like Enworld and Wizards. Over at those two, it's a well known tactic to flame a thread enough until it gets locked. They do this to threads in which they disagree with instead of coming up with a legitimate argument.

I'm sure the mods around here won't fall for that tactic.

We are all aware of the various theorycraft that goes on, but what actually happens at a real game table?

I can tell you from my table that all these shenanigans you see on these boards don't go on. Our PC's don't run around with endless sums of wealth while the party Wizard tries to defeat every encounter and the others just sit back and watch. None of our players are selfish and all work together. We also see a vast array of characters that include everything from fighters and rogues to Witches and Monks. Any time there is a combo that someone tries and it takes about 30 minutes of arguing whether or not it actually works then it's kicked to the curb.

We aren't on a time limit to see how quickly everything can be defeated, we like to actually sit back and enjoy every aspect of the game.

Most importantly, nobody in our group judges another person's character, they are not defined by a certain criteria such as subjective "usefulness", which varies from person to person.

What actually happens in your games? Does your table contain the types of things we see on these boards?

Here is the same old problem with these various arguments.

Color Spray: Good spell, but it's assuming all the enemies are huddled together, the wizard actually took the spell, the enemies aren't undead, and they all fail their save.

Spells in general: The argument always assumes the enemy fails it's save and is with in range.

Martial and Mind effects: It's always assumes the fighter fails it's save or the enemy actually has these sort of effects at it's disposal.

I think it would have been better if Move Silent and Hide had remained two separate skills in PF.

ParagonDireRaccoon wrote:

I've never seen a PFS game without either a fighter or barbarian, or at least one player with a few levels of fighter or barbarian. I agree that casters are more powerful, but players enjoy playing martials. I consider full BAB characters martials even if they have four levels of spells.

Is it that martials are fun, or that vancian is a pain?

This has got to be one of the saddest statements I have heard in a long time.

You are actually trying to dismiss someone's fun by essentially stating they most likely play martials because they have trouble with the magic.

The more responses I hear, the more I am convinced some of you don't actually play in a group.

shallowsoul wrote:

CWheezy wrote:

*looks at spell list*

*Sees blood money*

Welp, solved that problem. Maybe your issue is that they can't go into the past and update old books with new spells?

Just because a spell is listed for a specific class, doesn't mean you get auto access to it. I would rule that the DM would assign the studying part as a part of the adventure. The player doesn't automatically get to handwave the research part.

And that's a houserule. By RAW they get 2 spells per level as a prepared arcane, access to all of them as a prepared divine caster, and they learn spells at each level according to the chart as a spont and can learn more through other means(FCB). There isn't any "You must study! No access no spell!" by RAW. You can add it because you find it logical, but the point of the rule is ease of play.

Incorrect!

Show me a rule that states I, as a DM, have to allow everything.

Don't bother looking because you want. What spells and items you present in your campaign is not a houserule because there is no rule in this regard. Just like it isn't a house rule if you had no undead in your games.

Cerberus Seven wrote:

Anzyr wrote:

It gives you a +20 bonus on stealth checks when you are moving... so yes it makes you more silent, since Move Silently is now part of stealth. Please read the rules. Misinformation is bad mmm'kay?

Ummm...

Invisibility wrote:

Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.

What was that about misinformation?

As I learned from playing Magic... Reading is tech. andreww already addressed your flaws, but really for future reference its easier to just assume statements I make are RAW accurate, unless you have a significant amount of evidence otherwise.

I think you need to scale back the arrogance here. Some things you say may be RAW, but how you interpret it are a different matter.

I find that rather difficult to believe. At level 10 with skill focus, a +5 competence booster and a 24 dex you are still only looking at a +28. You might hit +30 with a racial bonus. Maybe an extra +4 if you are also small.

The equivalent wizard who doesnt bother with the feat but has bought the same dirt cheap competence boost, a 16 dex and has taken the same number of ranks is looking at +38 with invisibility. Of course the wizard could also be adding an extra +5 with reduce person or elemental body 1. They also are not going to be automatically detected by something with darkvision as soon as you lose cover or concealment.

Don't forget that being Invisible does not make you silent, and can also be detected with a simple Detect Magic.

shallowsoul wrote:

I would also like it if some people here would acknowledge that their way is not the one and true way to play the game, that just because they don't see a benefit for an option that others cannot.

Sure, I can acknowledge that there are some options that are niche but still useful if you can acknowledge that there are options that provide practically zero benefit for anyone.

List them then and let's see if we can find uses for them.

While I don't like bloat, I think the biggest problem here are internet forums. Just because person X found a way to combine abilities from 10 different books to create an uber character combo on an internet forum doesn't mean a system is inherently broken or that there is too much bloat. Don't worry about what player X does in his game and posts it on a forum, just worry about your own game and if you don't want it there then don't allow it.

Too many people just want to win on the internet.

How about the devs give an example of a mounted knight attacking an orc while charging?

Ignoring the "op" thing for a while, spells tend to be so niche stealing that is not cool anymore.

The wizard stealing the rogue job even once a day is enough if the day only needed the rogue once.

If there is a rogue in the party, why would you take spells that attempt to do his job? I get tired of hearing this lame ass excuse. In all my years of gaming, I have rarely seen a wizard take these spells when there is a rogue in the party who can do the same thing all day long.

Instead of having: "We don't need the rogue because the wizard took such and such spells", how about we have "We don't need the Wizard taking such and such spells because we have a rogue"?

I think the crux of the whole argument is the simple fact that there a people here that just won't admit that every table is not for them and that campaigns don't have to be changed in order to accommodate them.

shallowsoul wrote:

Basically what you are saying is that unless you are free to play what ever you want, you won't be playing in that campaign. Correct?

Incorrect. This is what I mean by trying to understand other people's points of view.

What I am saying is that, when I encounter people who, right way, aggressively assert their need to impose limits, I recognize that I'm better off not sitting in their games, because past experience has shown that I do not enjoy spending time around people like that.

I think you might be mistaken with regards to the aggression part. Being adamant about your restrictions is not being aggressive. Insisting you play what you want to play or the DM is bad is aggressive and a few posters here have done that.

I propose my games bluntly, like I would a business transaction.

I don't throw in a pretty please with a cherry on top. I lay it out there and that's it.

Arssanguinus wrote:

Hitdice wrote:

I'm not sure if I've said this before, but I think this conversation would benefit (across its myriad threads; I had no idea Exotic Race Antipathy was still open!) if we stopped using CRB material for examples. The one that always seems to come up is no elves, and the thing is that wanting to play an elf doesn't make you a special snowflake, or mean you're out to ruin the GM's setting. It just means you read the racial options in the CRB.

If you also read the campaign blurb before coming to play, you would onow that particular CRB option is not in that particular campaign. Wanting an elf doesn't make you a 'special snowflake' or a 'problem player'. Demanding one in a campaign where a point has specifically been made about their absence does. Especially if, as is always the case in ky campaigns, you selected that one from the available blurbs. My players don't go into a game blindfolded, making haracters without knowing anything. Just because its in the CRB doesn't mean it must exist in every campaign world.

Must? No, of course not. But it does mean that a player isn't being unreasonable to expect to find it, as it's the standard baseline version of Pathfinder.

If a GM is restricting CRB material, then you probably can't help to make it your own because your own because it is, in fact, restricted. If you can help to make your own, it's probably not restricted in a very meaningful way. Up next, how come there's no such thing as dehydrated water?

Actually it is unreasonable. Expecting other races after I just told you what is allowed is being unreasonable. Seriously, that sounds like when you tell someone not to touch something that is hot and they touch it anyway.

If I tell you elves only, you shouldn't be expecting any other race.

If I wanted non-elves then I wouldn't be running an all elven campaign in the first place.

Vaziir Jivaan wrote:

I roll everything in front of my players when it comes to combat related functions, and my players love the transparency. They like knowing that they're surviving on their own ability coupled with luck and that they aren't fated to the whimsy of the DM.

I am also someone that rolls everything in the open. Even with that, I as the GM know, that there are times characters are saved due to my whims. A character gets knocked out and I don't hit them with a finishing blow, but instead move on to another character that is still up, they just got saved by my whim.

The idea is for players to "believe" their characters are surviving due to their own abilities and luck. If that is the truth or not, is largely irrelevant, merely if they believe it is true.

Well when someone doesn't like a default game where they could die by the dice and they don't expect to play in that kind of game then there is no danger to believe in.

ciretose wrote:

But some of us feel like when the GM uses fiat to save us, that cheapens our character.

I don't think anyone's disagreed with that sentiment, ciretose. Indeed, I agree with your previous post about dungeon design and how a DM should be consistent and logical in planning them. That said, we really must define the word "arbitrary" here. When I here someone talking about an arbitrary PC death, I think of poor dungeon layout. I think of encounters that aren't designed well, with much higher CR than is appropriate, and adversaries with pimped-out gear and such. Falling into 100 foot chasms with no Perception check. That kind of thing.

Why are you having trouble defining the word? Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim. If you are going through a dungeon and you have no map that tells you exactly where you need to go, then you are exploring it randomly. Now when I create dungeons, I will randomly put traps here and there. If you happen to choose corridor A instead of B, walk into a trap, fail your save, and die from HP loss then you just had an arbitrary death. That is part of the game. Everything is not guts and glory unless your DM is giving you that kind of game and that would entail a single corridor with what you seek at the end.

shallowsoul wrote:

Detect Magic wrote:

I don't mind if my character dies during an epic, last stand confrontation, or a hail-mary attempt to stall the big-bad's advance long enough for my party to flee, but to die... arbitrarily? That's just a bummer.

Sucks but you will get over it.

And it's comments along this line that start many of the fights we've been having. I happen to like dungeon crawls and traps; that said, "Get over it" isn't a great approach to take to the players of your game.

Sure, they'll get over it, or at least many will. But some will harbor grudges against killer GMs, and you in particular, if they believe there is any sort of malice (real or imagined) in your actions. Further, as Mikaze and Detect Magic were saying, there are other complications to adding in a new character into the existing party. They are not insurmountable, but they do exist and represent time and energy lost to some people.

Not everyone enjoys the same sort of game as everyone else, nor does everyone keep a stack of disposable characters in case die rolls go bad and they have to bring out Bob the Barbarian IX, which is the same as all the others with a new number. From my experience, within a few sessions you should have an idea of what your players like and want out of a game, and at the very least should strive to incorporate some of that into the game. If they dislike keeping track of camp and random encounters, phase some of that out. Not into social play or urban adventures/detective work? Then you adapt and look for the things that make you all happy. Otherwise it makes for a long and tedious game. YMMV.

Let me stop you right there.

Player's dying by the rules of the game is not "DM's killing the players". If I said "bang you die", then you would have an argument but that's not what I am talking about. People need to stop this attitude of saying DMs are killing them if they die in the course of the game in any way but the way they want to die. It does suck to die but "everyone" will get over it. If you can't get over it then maybe you don't need to be playing games in the first place.

People also need to lose the attitude of holding a DM hostage to the jive about being a "killer" or "bad DM" if they allow the players to die during the course of a campaign. I'm not here to coddle people and pretend that s%%~e smells of roses. There are rewards and there are consequences built into the game by default and it is the DMs job to bring "both" of those into the game. I mean for god sakes, you already have multiple ways of being brought back from the dead, saves, healing, etc.. What more do you want?

My table finds it difficult to transition new characters into a party.

Most often the group is someplace isolated, so happening into another person in the middle of nowhere doesn't always work so well. I mean, you can only play off the "lone survivor of another adventuring party" so many times...

And then there's the hassle of forming peer-bonds/trust with a complete stranger. The deceased PC was already situated into the group, but what about this new guy? Why should the party trust him... maybe he murdered his adventuring party and made off with all the loot (after all... look at all those nice things he's carrying; that is, of course, a reference to the fact that new characters are brought into the game per the WBL chart, which rarely aligns evenly with the party and often allows for the newly created PC to enter the game with precisely the right gear for his/her build)?

All-in-all, it's just a pain. Now, if the DM and/or players want to participate in a player-killer campaign, that's a discussion to be had before the game begins.

If you want to play outside the default of the game then more power to you but I wouldn't call it player-killing.

PC deaths are a part of the game, it is in the design of the game.

shallowsoul wrote:

Detect Magic wrote:

I don't mind if my character dies during an epic, last stand confrontation, or a hail-mary attempt to stall the big-bad's advance long enough for my party to flee, but to die... arbitrarily? That's just a bummer.

Sucks but you will get over it.

The PC they wanted to play won't, however.

So they play another PC?

Please don't bring up the extreme case of the player only having that one concept ever.

If you don't want your character to die then why are you playing Pathfinder?

Let me rephrase that. If you want control over your character's death, why are you playing Pathfinder?

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

GDM there IS a difference if the person speaking IS a wise old experienced dungeon master.

But here we are again with a situation where the goal is to score rhetorical points to WIN a thread. I am so tired of this.

FIne GDM, you discount experience. I expect you'll get your heart surgery done by an intern then. Knock yourself out.

He's misapplying the logical fallacy in this argument. Here, we had a naysayer claim the author lacked experience to make his claims. Someone pointed out that the author had decades of experience.

The logical fallacy is not relevant. An Appeal to Authority is an argument where the validity of the claim rests solely on the claim being made by the authority.

Example: "The rogue has a full BAB progression. You can beleive me because I have ten years experience playing rogues."

This argument is an Appeal to Authority, since the claim is supported exclusively by the experience of the claimant.

This is not the same as saying that a person with three decades of gaming experience might not have insightful things to say about types of gamers or playstyles. In fact, since such advice is subjective, it's not even grounds for logical argumentation. Logical arguments (and therefore, the risk of logical fallacies) require that claims be premised around discern the truth of factual claims.

Opinions aren't facts.

That's not what AD was saying. GDM essentially said that experience means nothing which is a fallacy. Experience doesn't make you always right, but what it does is make your opinion more valuable.

I particularly liked:

KQ wrote:

... There’s a lot to be said in favor of “yes, but.” As GM philosophies go, it’s better than most.

It can, however, become a trap for the unwary or overly generous GM who’s trying to build a world with a strong theme.

Seems to me the article is about a word of caution to some GMs, if you can't handle "yes, but" GMing philosophy, you better stick with "No" GMing philosophy.

Why can't people like you understand that some DM's say "no" by choice and not because they are lacking in a particular area.

For many people, alignment is a straightjacket. "No, you're playing CG wrong. No you're not playing LG right."

It shouldn't be, but it is for many people. Which is why I say the alignment system should be disregarded altogether.

I've removed it in my last 2 campaigns with good results.

Alignment is supposed to be a straight jacket, to a certain extent.

The point of playing an alignment is to try and stick to it and it's limitations.

In all my years of playing, I have seen lots of players trying to play themselves. Playing with particular beliefs, morals, etc is all a part of the fun.

Arssanguinus, those two things aren't related. My argument why you should be willing to include things in Pathfinder's books was based around mechanics. Specifically, what I said was that the mechanics already exist for the race and are relatively balanced, which removes that major obstacle to introducing a new race into the setting. Drow uniformly being one alignment isn't a matter of wanting extant mechanics. The mechanics exist and work fine whether or not all drow are CE.

Also, if we are to go only by Pathfinder, how do we handle contradictions within just Pathfinder material? As 137ben pointed out above, the rules for alignment state that intelligent humanoids can be any alignment which contradicts the requirement that all drow be evil. Are we supposed to write logical impossibilities into our settings? How do we even do that?

shallowsoul wrote:

Do not use novels as an argument because novels are corner cases and do not represent the norm.

That's rather arbitrary a restriction. Do you think that we shouldn't use novels to inform what elves or dwarves are? Is referring to LotR now off-limits?

Oh boy, here we go.

We all know that everything has the potential to be a different alignment, but unless you are told different then you expect the default. This means that all demons are chaotic evil and all devils are lawful evil.

If there was any situation where this is different, then a good DM will work that into the scenario and give the PC's the opportunity to figure that out.

Basically you want to play whatever you want, no matter it's common reputation, without any beef from the populace.

Drow PC's aren't core therefore, they are not to be expected in the game as a PC unless the DM says otherwise.

Arssanguinus wrote:

I usually start with the actual words defining the race. How about you? By all means, you can have YOUR Drow be different, but it doesn't make it somehow wrong to portray them as written. Which you seem to imply.

Whose actual words? This is a point you are ignoring. Is this the words of Pathfinder's ARG? Pathfinder's Bestiary? The Second Darkness adventure path? The Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Monster Manual? The descriptions of the creatures from Shetlandic myth? RA Salvatore's novels? Gary Gygax's novels? Elaine Cunningham's novels? Keith Baker's novels? Eberron's campaign setting? D&D3.5's Monster Manual? D&D3.5's Drow of the Underdark book? D&D4e's Monster Manual? D&D4e's Forgotten Realms Player's Guide?

Drow have been evil since they were created by Gygax.

Beastiary: Although related to the elves, the drow are a vile and evil
cousin at best. Sometimes called dark elves, these cunning
creatures prowl the caves and tunnels of the world below,
ruling vast subterranean cities through fear and might.

Do not use novels as an argument because novels are corner cases and do not represent the norm.

Some people run games where somehow the townfolk are not afraid of the hulking troll PC or the dark skinned, evil by legend, drow PC. Not everyone runs those type of games though. I go by the default when it comes to creatures. If you are a drow, then I leave it up to you to establish your reputation as a good guy because the people in my games will not cut you any slack until you prove yourself, and that's only in that specific area.

But why is it a failing as a player? That's just a 'badwrongfun' argument isn't it? If somebody else can only have fun if he's spend three weeks solid thinking about the character and writing about him before the game starts and I've spent an hour why am I right and he wrong? If he isn't monopolising game time and insisting on reading through his long background during the game then why should I say his way is a 'failing'?

Equally, some people like lethality and danger and others want their hero to be the type who always finds a way to overcome, always seeming about to die but always surviving in the end. Neither is a failing, it's just different tastes.

How about I run this by you?

Nobody really cares how long someone spends on their character but why should the DM give that person special treatment?

What about John over there who isn't good at creating backstories that take three weeks? Should he be shown any less attention?

If you say no then this will involve showing everyone special treatment etc....

In fairness, I stick to the default rules of the game. If you fail your save vs a Finger of Death then you take a dirt nap. Same goes with losing all of your hit points.

I would suggest finding a like minded group of players.

ciretose wrote:

If it takes you three weeks AND you require plot armor, what am I supposed to do?

Erm... Be my friend? Well maybe not mine, but whoever this hypothetical friend is.

And all the situations your describing are ones that make it look bad. Alternatively this guy spend three weeks working on it before the game started and took those three weeks to make sure everything was okay with you and how to integrate everything and its also a major loss for you. Suddenly it makes a lot more sense.

Please stop using the "friend" card.

I tell you from my experience that if he/she was truly a friend of the group then we wouldn't be having this conversation or the one from the other thread.

That person would agree that the majority voted for that certain campaign and they will play in it under those restrictions.

Immortal Greed wrote:

Not every adventurer survives the dungeon.

A sudden death can be an end to a story.

Now, are you rolling up a new character?

Why should I ?

If you want to continue playing you will.

If not then good luck.

This is the last post I am going to make on this thread.

Two positions have been posited here.

The first is that it is wrong for players to be totally uncompromising and demand to play a specific character concept in exactly the way they want it.

This position has been ratified by virtually everyone posting here. Almost no one has denied it.

The second is that it is wrong for GMs to be totally uncompromising and refuse to alter any aspect of their campaign world in order to work with the interests of a player who wants to do something a bit different.

This position has been repeatedly and aggressively rejected by many of you.

Do you see the imbalance? Who, really, is the "special snowflake" in this relationship?

I have nothing more to say about this at this time.

Let me sum it up for you.

You can demand whatever you want, just don't expect a DM to always take on board those demands.

ciretose wrote:

Erick Wilson wrote:

ciretose wrote:

So the GM can't even propose an idea without it being a "dick move", but they should find a way to accommodate what ever a single player comes up with.

Cognitive dissonance much?

No. There is no cognitive dissonance. Let me remind you that I am a GM too. I know the preferences of most of my player group very well. There are many, many games that I want to run, that I am not even going to bring up at this point. Why? Because I know that some of them are not interested and the best result I can hope for is that those players will either feel pressured by the group into playing (and not actually have a very good time) or that they will try to accommodate me, but either compromise their desires too much (and therefore not have a good time) or enter into an ultimately frustrating negotiation process of exactly the kind we have been discussing. The difference between me and many of the posters in this thread is that I do not begrudge my players their interests, because doing so is ridiculous and would reflect concern solely for my desires. Just as many of you have suggested that the player should be able to come up with some other character they want to play, I am fully capable of coming up with other campaigns that I am interested in running, that DO appeal to ALL of my players. And this is not theorycrafting. It is what I do.

Great. But if you do find that a group, or subgroup of the people you play with does want to run what you want to run, the person who doesn't want to run it doesn't get to veto everyone else's fun.

Yes they do. In my group, yes they absolutely do. If I want to play with that person, I am going to find a way to include him that actually interests him, period.

So why can't the player find a way that interests you so he can be included?

Someone on the boards found it funny when I discussed characters being heavily involved in the story and advicating arbitrary death at the same time. Where is the problem with this? Why can't I spend a lot of time on my character, have him heavily involved with the story and at the same time, accept that things happen and characters die by that lone trap or that lucky hit from a monster?

I do this with each of my characters and I don't see why it would be funny.

Immortal Greed wrote:

You claim that level appropriate traps can't kill pcs? Really? They can't die if they have already been injured or if they are fighting monsters while the traps go off? Or, get hit just before the monsters clash into them, with an ambush following the trap being sprung? Traps and then monsters or monsters and then traps can clean up pcs.

Then it's not the trap killing them.

Yeah, it's the sudden loss of hit points.

Arssanguinus wrote:

If they agreed to a game where 'x' wasn't included and they insist on 'x' then at the end of the day it kinda is. It would be roughly similar to the gm promising you CAN play 'x' and then reneging at the table. I bet you would find that one unacceptable but why on the other hand is a player agreeing in essence not to then bringing that to the table not considered non kosher?

Really, it's about presentation though. If you come in with for example, "I know you said no elves but I've always like the flavor of 'x' with ''x', 'x' and 'x', is there any way I can get that here?

Or "I know you didn't include paladins as a playable class, but I've been looking at the background you gave and I've got an idea that I think might fit what you gave me, could you tell me if it works for you?"

Or even "I want to play a ninja/priest multi-class and reskin it as a cleric of Osveta, the god of revenge and retribution."

Then it's going to get some thought and consideration during the pre campaign character discussions.

Vs;

"I know you said no 'x' but here is my 'x' build and if you don't let it in you're a tyrant and a jerk'

Or "I want to be 'x' BECAUSE you said no 'x' and I'd be completely unique, man!"(yes, I did actually have that once)

This or something vaguely similar however is going to get about as much consideration as a free root canal booth along the side of the road.

Note that all of the positive examples include some consideration for the milieu they will be playing in and ask 'how can I make this character concept fit into the world". Rather than "how can YOU make the world fit this character concept?"

The paladin concept did end up changing the world, by adding a specific city-state and a deity - but through work by the player and some tweaking on my part both fit into the world like they belonged there. But if the player is going to assume that something that was specifically excluded in the character creation notes should be fit in, its going to be

...

This statement is proof that you haven't read the thread or understood it. We have already stated long ago that a player can make a request. What has been repeated by certain posters here is that their concepts should always be allowed.

These same people have stated repeatedly that you are a bad DM if you do not allow it. What I am trying to make clear is that I run my games the way it suits my players. You can run your game however you see fit but don't assume we all run our games that way.

I have two games going at the moment, one on a Tuesday and another on a Thursday. The Tuesday game is a restricted game that is elves only while Thursday is all races from the CRB plus three from ARG. I reserve the right to run a restricted game on one night and another on a different night. That is my compromise, that is how I do things. If I say all humans then it's all humans. Don't show up with an elf after I have told you the restrictions.

You have a nasty habit or arguing for the sake of arguing or you just don't take the time to actually read.

Okay, so my paladin uses bluff to trick a man into drinking that pint of ale that I just poisoned. It's okay though because paladins are allowed to use bluff.